Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Triceron]

It's the difference between going "I hate chocolate ice cream" and "this shop's chocolate ice cream is terrible" - they're not the same statement, because while no one can argue against you personally not liking chocolate ice cream, they absolutely can argue about the quality of a particular shop's chocolate ice cream based on standards and criteria relating to chocolate ice cream.

I agree with most of what you've said, but I don't know if I necessarily agree with the quoted part here. You're right that they're not the same statement, you're right that the quality of the chocolate ice cream based on certain standards can also be argued. But those standards are still going to be opinion-driven and subjective, just the same as expressing likes and dislikes. 'Good' and 'Bad' standards of quality are ultimately subjective, and can not be objectively defined by any means. At most, it's a 'commonly accepted standard' based on collective opinions, like mutually agreeing that Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream is a good quality dessert even if individual quality standards for Ben and Jerry's may be wildly variable. If someone said they think Ben and Jerry's is bad quality, that's ultimately coming from their opinion and standards. I don't think that can be argued as being a wrong statement just it doesn't abide a collectively agreeable standard.

Even if the statements aren't the same, the general discussion should be the same as if one were discussing opinion, because opinion is being used to judge quality. There's nothing to objectively prove, it's ultimately an expression of opinion, merely stated in a way that sounds objective but really isn't. "Ben and Jerry's ice cream is terrible" isn't usually going to be taken as an objective statement that one could argue against using any objective standards. At most, it's just that individual expressing their personal opinion based on their own standards.

[Biomega]

That's also something I only see happening on forums. I can't recall when the last time someone took "Hey, this show is garbage" as something else than someones opinion when talking about anything in real life.

There's different rules governing written and spoken communication, and different standards. As someone whose job involves critiquing people's arguments, let me tell you that this is by no means exclusive to online forums - not even close. In fact it's VERY prevalent in all kinds of communication, at all sorts of levels from media to politics to academia. Erroneous or outright fallacious epistemology is a widespread problem - it's just that sometimes it's better disguised than others, and the unmasking is also somewhat contingent on the respective audiences. If you were to go through media reports or political statements with a discerning eye and a fine-toothed comb, you'd stumble over this at every turn (and that despite journalists being specifically trained to watch out for the distinctions between reporting and punditry, mind you).

It becomes more pronounced in online forums, perhaps, because it's easier to attack people on an anonymous, low-consequence platform.

It's going very much into technicalities

I don't consider the distinction between argument and opinion a mere technicality. Sound epistemology is a core tenet of rational debate - we NEED to train ourselves to do better, and the prevailing zeitgeist of 'alternative facts' and 'my opinion is worth as much as your fact' and so on isn't doing it any favors. It's in all our best interest to conduct debates properly, at least at the basic level. They should teach this in schools. Very few schools do. The result is that people increasingly have difficulty separating opinion from argument - I see this all the time in the undergrads I teach. They get very easily confused and have trouble properly articulating arguments, especially when they diverge from their own personal opinion (which is why I like to give them assignments that force them to argue that way).

I agree with most of what you've said, but I don't know if I necessarily agree with the quoted part here. You're right that they're not the same statement, you're right that the quality of the chocolate ice cream based on certain standards can also be argued. But those standards are still going to be opinion-driven and subjective, just the same as expressing likes and dislikes. 'Good' and 'Bad' standards of quality are ultimately subjective, and can not be objectively defined by any means.

I didn't say "objective", I said "based on standards and criteria". You can argue about the existence of ANY kind of objective statement, which is philosophically interesting but mostly irrelevant to the point I'm making - my point is that once you've set standards and given criteria, you can make objective assessments relative to those standards. That doesn't mean those standards are themselves objectively right or wrong. They're the premises upon which we agree in order to even have a conversation. The usual analogy for this is the rules of chess: there is nothing objectively defining the rules of chess, they're pretty arbitrary; but once we agree that those are the rules, we can evaluate moves objectively with respect to those rules, i.e. we could say "this move is worse than that move" because it's less likely to lead to a win under the given rules. That says NOTHING about the objectivity of the rules themselves, but that's not relevant to that discussion - we've already (implicitly) agreed on those rules, because otherwise we'd have no discussion.

It's the same in the ice cream example. We can say that e.g. having poorly mixed ice cream, or improperly frozen ice cream, or ice cream where they mixed up salt and sugar etc. etc. is objectively "bad ice cream" with respect to the standards for ice cream that we agree upon (implicitly or explicitly). We may renegotiate those if necessary - but that's not what the debate is about. It's one level down from that.

[rhorle]

I think we can all conclude that rhorles life is all about defending the show; following the same logic.

So you can't discuss things you may like? Strange. Why keep discussing things you hate including just posting carbon copy of articles? There is no discussion being fostered. No intent other then to spread dislike and hate of the show. Just like you felt the need to insult me for no other reason then you could. If they people that disliked the show just stopped this thread would have little discussion.

Yet you'll come back to insult others, the show, and what not. Why? Why not just ignore the show and move on to something you actually like?

- - - Updated - - -

oh absolutely, it's all about "Putting someone in their place" or "correcting someone's opinion" which is a bizarre obsession to surround ones life with. I never understood the mentality that goes behind "trying to disprove" someone elses opinion, like so many posters do in this thread, or the forum overall.

This is hilarious as you are posting to try to "put me in my place".

[Triceron]

This is hilarious as you are posting to try to "put me in my place".

Well, all anyone is doing here is stating the obvious.

No one is attacking your opinion, only outlining your actions here. All you do is troll, not have a conversation.

[Kumorii]

There's different rules governing written and spoken communication, and different standards. As someone whose job involves critiquing people's arguments, let me tell you that this is by no means exclusive to online forums - not even close. In fact it's VERY prevalent in all kinds of communication, at all sorts of levels from media to politics to academia. Erroneous or outright fallacious epistemology is a widespread problem - it's just that sometimes it's better disguised than others, and the unmasking is also somewhat contingent on the respective audiences. If you were to go through media reports or political statements with a discerning eye and a fine-toothed comb, you'd stumble over this at every turn (and that despite journalists being specifically trained to watch out for the distinctions between reporting and punditry, mind you).

It becomes more pronounced in online forums, perhaps, because it's easier to attack people on an anonymous, low-consequence platform.

These forums, and most forums that are casual and not movements or politically involved or have something behind it except just private people engaging with another is more of a conversation. Which is how I take them as and I'm only talking from a conversational perspective. Your examples are different and holds to a different standard. Being accurate in academia and politics (and journalism on these topics) have real life implications and being accurate is important.
Me talking to another person about a show however? I don't see the need...especially when the consensus is that it's not needed except on forums. I even think Journalism on shows or movies are also a conversation because it have little bearings and the ones that I don't hold to the standard of a conversation often makes it clear it's political through their wording anyway.

I don't consider the distinction between argument and opinion a mere technicality. Sound epistemology is a core tenet of rational debate - we NEED to train ourselves to do better, and the prevailing zeitgeist of 'alternative facts' and 'my opinion is worth as much as your fact' and so on isn't doing it any favors. It's in all our best interest to conduct debates properly, at least at the basic level. They should teach this in schools. Very few schools do. The result is that people increasingly have difficulty separating opinion from argument - I see this all the time in the undergrads I teach. They get very easily confused and have trouble properly articulating arguments, especially when they diverge from their own personal opinion (which is why I like to give them assignments that force them to argue that way).

That's the thing, you are treating this as rational debate. Where as if we had these conversations in real life, as per my example, no one goes in with the mindset of it being a debate... we're would be having a conversation. In fact, most interactions in life is straight up conversations, where the norm is understanding that the other person isn't taking it as a debate where everything needs to be proved or backed up or voiced properly. Context usually is enough. These technicalities is only important IF you have said debate and I agree with that.
Debate is also built on the premise that both sides argue their side and why they are correct in the goal of persuading the other side to yours... that's not how conversation works.

If you ask someone about their day and they say "This day fucking sucks". Would that become a debate? Or would it be a conversation based on the context it's voiced?

I don't mind talking about my views or even why I think it's correct and what not but that's still under the context umbrella of a conversation. And usually when someones views and explanation of those views under said context it's to make the other person understand your view, not convince them to also believe your view or even make them change theirs. That's different from a debate.

I just don't see the value in turning a discussion about what people think of a show into a debate. In the end people will still think what they think about the show, because peoples perception of a show is determined by how that show made them feel when watching it, not by any standards or criteria of the general consensus. In fact I think it's easier to make someone appreciate a show if you have a conversation with them rather than debating them about it. Naturally we humans tend to get defensive when pressed like most debates usually are. There's a difference in talking about why I think something is good or bad and that might change your view because of a perspective shift and me debating the same points trying to convince you of such.

Hell, even when it comes to certain political contexts it's more important to have conversations rather than debates... See Daryl Davis, don't want to shift topic, but his views on how to talk to people of differing views is sort of what I look up to. Which I think online engagement usually starts the way he mention is only gonna lead to conflict.

But damn, this turned into a bigger topic than I intended and it's getting way off-topic... so I will probably stop here.

[rhorle]

That's the thing, you are treating this as rational debate. Where as if we had these conversations in real life, as per my example, no one goes in with the mindet of it being a debate... we're just having a conversation.

Then why object to what I said? Wouldn't you question why someone keeps talking about something they hate in real life? Why conversations with them are always negative and surrounding things they don't like? Yet here it is a problem because it came from someone other than yourself and from someone that doesn't hold the same view of something as you.

You preach but then don't follow your own sermon. That is the biggest problem in online discussions.

[Biomega]

That's the thing, you are treating this as rational debate. Where as if we had these conversations in real life, as per my example, no one goes in with the mindset of it being a debate... we're would be having a conversation.

And if we wanted to have a thorough conversation, we would watch out for this as well - it'd just be easier to do, because we can communicate directly and nonverbally, which makes it far easier to properly convey intent. You can't do that the same way in written conversation, and you also have different expectations. Forums aren't just the same conversations you'd have IRL only they're online.

But to be perfectly honest: I DO treat most IRL conversations as rational debates, too, if they're discussing things of substance. I press people for specifics in conversation, too, or point out that they're not making good arguments. We all should. This isn't the same as being rude or brusque, of course; all in a civilized, measured, polite manner. When I sit down with someone after dinner or whatever and we're having a conversation, I'll take them to task on bad epistemology just the same. If they treat opinions like arguments and try to be convincing - I'll point out that's not how it works. We all should, because it's in all our best interest to be better at this.

If you ask someone about their day and they say "This day fucking sucks". Would that become a debate? Or would it be a conversation based on the context it's voiced?

All this is for conversations of substance, of course. There's different rules for small-talk, which is a different form of conversation where the actual content is as relevant as the proper assessment of the quality of the day in "How's it going", as you rightly point out. That's a different form of communication, and it'd be asinine and ignorant to assume that a demand for sound epistemology in debate translates to insisting on technical accuracy in all forms of idiomatic speech.

That's part of the problem, by the way. Improper training about communication is WHY you'd immediately jump to such an absurd example - that's what people have become used to, and that's the result of being out of practice with properly structured thinking and arguing. It's also WHY it's important to hold people to task; this only gets worse the more you let slide.

[Triceron]

I didn't say "objective", I said "based on standards and criteria". You can argue about the existence of ANY kind of objective statement, which is philosophically interesting but mostly irrelevant to the point I'm making - my point is that once you've set standards and given criteria, you can make objective assessments relative to those standards. That doesn't mean those standards are themselves objectively right or wrong. They're the premises upon which we agree in order to even have a conversation. The usual analogy for this is the rules of chess: there is nothing objectively defining the rules of chess, they're pretty arbitrary; but once we agree that those are the rules, we can evaluate moves objectively with respect to those rules, i.e. we could say "this move is worse than that move" because it's less likely to lead to a win under the given rules. That says NOTHING about the objectivity of the rules themselves, but that's not relevant to that discussion - we've already (implicitly) agreed on those rules, because otherwise we'd have no discussion.

It's the same in the ice cream example. We can say that e.g. having poorly mixed ice cream, or improperly frozen ice cream, or ice cream where they mixed up salt and sugar etc. etc. is objectively "bad ice cream" with respect to the standards for ice cream that we agree upon (implicitly or explicitly). We may renegotiate those if necessary - but that's not what the debate is about. It's one level down from that.

I agree more with this explanation. What I don't agree with is the simplification of the example, since I still think 'bad ice cream' is still nebulous at best. I mean, by the way I see the conversations in the last 3-4 pages about the 'success' of the show, it's pretty clear to me no one is agreeing upon a standard.

To simplify it, I think what goes on here is more like the debate on pineapple on pizza. It's gonna be an acquired taste that exists outside of any tangible agreed-upon standard of quality. It seems like (certain) people aren't interested in any objectively assessments, and are just more interested arguing for the sake of it. It shouldn't even matter if anyone expresses their opinion that Pineapple on Pizza is good or bad, yet the mere mention of 'good' or 'bad' triggers pages of argument with no regard to the idea that these expressions weren't meant to be debated. And simply having a reason for thinking it being good or bad doesn't make those statements objectively assessable by any common standard either, since these are ultimately expressions of opinion. You could debate someone's reasons for loving/hating pineapple on pizza, but it'd ultimately be a pointless debate.

[Biomega]

To simplify it, I think what goes on here is more like the debate on pineapple on pizza.

A lot of it is. The problem isn't that some people like pineapple on pizza and some don't; the problem is that some people instead go "that pizza has pineapple on it, and therefore it's bad pizza". Which is not how debate works.

If all you're interested in is an exchange of subjective preferences, there IS NO debate. "I like pineapple on pizza" "I don't." "Cool." "Cool." Nothing going on. We can acknowledge that yes indeed we all have our own preferences, and that's the end of it. But that's not what most people are interested in. They want to CONVINCE people of the validity of certain positions - but as soon as you want that, you can no longer bring opinions (i.e. subjective preferences) to the table, because they have no place there. You need arguments.

[Kumorii]

And if we wanted to have a thorough conversation, we would watch out for this as well - it'd just be easier to do, because we can communicate directly and nonverbally, which makes it far easier to properly convey intent. You can't do that the same way in written conversation, and you also have different expectations. Forums aren't just the same conversations you'd have IRL only they're online.

But to be perfectly honest: I DO treat most IRL conversations as rational debates, too, if they're discussing things of substance. I press people for specifics in conversation, too, or point out that they're not making good arguments. We all should. This isn't the same as being rude or brusque, of course; all in a civilized, measured, polite manner. When I sit down with someone after dinner or whatever and we're having a conversation, I'll take them to task on bad epistemology just the same. If they treat opinions like arguments and try to be convincing - I'll point out that's not how it works. We all should, because it's in all our best interest to be better at this.

All this is for conversations of substance, of course. There's different rules for small-talk, which is a different form of conversation where the actual content is as relevant as the proper assessment of the quality of the day in "How's it going", as you rightly point out. That's a different form of communication, and it'd be asinine and ignorant to assume that a demand for sound epistemology in debate translates to insisting on technical accuracy in all forms of idiomatic speech.

That's part of the problem, by the way. Improper training about communication is WHY you'd immediately jump to such an absurd example - that's what people have become used to, and that's the result of being out of practice with properly structured thinking and arguing. It's also WHY it's important to hold people to task; this only gets worse the more you let slide.

As I mentioned in my post edit I won't go much further since it getting way off-topic. But it has been an interesting talk. I'll say I agree with you, in certain contexts, not everything or everywhere. For me, talking about a show like these, is small-talk and not serious nor do I see how "things can get worse unless we correct people" when I don't even think it's a problem in the context of talking about entertainment.

[Triceron]

A lot of it is. The problem isn't that some people like pineapple on pizza and some don't; the problem is that some people instead go "that pizza has pineapple on it, and therefore it's bad pizza". Which is not how debate works.

If all you're interested in is an exchange of subjective preferences, there IS NO debate. "I like pineapple on pizza" "I don't." "Cool." "Cool." Nothing going on. We can acknowledge that yes indeed we all have our own preferences, and that's the end of it. But that's not what most people are interested in. They want to CONVINCE people of the validity of certain positions - but as soon as you want that, you can no longer bring opinions (i.e. subjective preferences) to the table, because they have no place there. You need arguments.

But that's my point really. Someone can say "Pineapple on pizza is bad pizza" without it being up for debate. It is an expression of opinion, even if the statement may seem objectively debateable. It really isn't, because the intent is still rooted in opinion.

What constitutes 'bad pizza' is not really up for debate. It's gonna be on the level of 'I think it's bad' 'I don't think it's bad' except it happens to get drawn out for pages on end because no one is agreeing on this being a matter of opinion and merely leaving it at 'Cool.'

Having a reason to back an opinion is not always intended as a means to convince other people to have to agree upon the same standards. Sometimes it's just simply elaborating a position and why we feel the way we do. I think that's the crux of most 'debates' on here. They're misconstruances of opinion as debateable points (when they aren't intended to be), and it's mostly pointless if neither side is interested in hearing each other out.

[Biomega]

But that's my point really. Someone can say "Pineapple on pizza is bad pizza" without it being up for debate.

Then that's an opinion, and that's fine, and we can't do anything with it except say "yep, that's an opinion that is". If they want to CONVINCE anyone that their position has validity, that IS a debate. If they don't, then we're good, and we just nod and move on. But I'd wager most people aren't just in it for the nod; they proffer their position with the expectation of engagement.

[Triceron]

Then that's an opinion, and that's fine, and we can't do anything with it except say "yep, that's an opinion that is". If they want to CONVINCE anyone that their position has validity, that IS a debate. If they don't, then we're good, and we just nod and move on. But I'd wager most people aren't just in it for the nod; they proffer their position with the expectation of engagement.

Sometimes.

Someone explaining the reasons why they think Pineapple makes for bad pizza in a convincing argument doesn't immediately open it up for debate, it can merely be an elaborated expression of opinion.

Does it make any difference between someone simply saying it's bad, and someone saying it's bad because X and Y? It's still going to be opinion, and merely saying 'because X and Y' doesn't then make it debateable. It's still an opinion.

"X movie is bad" and "X movie is bad because _____" may be different statements, but one doesn't suddenly become debateable just because an argument or reasoning has been presented. The context is still opinion. It's sort of a situation where either they're both debateable, or they're both not debateable. The introduction of an argument (whether to convince others or not) doesn't turn it into a debate. Cuz if we're going with that explanation, then literally anything can be a debate so long as you force an argument onto it.

"I don't like Pineapple on pizza. Salty and sweet shouldn't be mixed" Sounds like a debateable argument, but it really isn't because contextually it's an extension of opinion. Whether you are convinced or not doesn't make it a debate because it's still just that person's expressed opinion. It only really becomes 'debateable' here because people tend to jump on anything that goes against their own opinion and argue it for the sake of argument. And we end up with pages of "You said Salty and Sweet shouldn't be mixed, where is your proof?"

It's basically how Kumorii explained it - conversation being lost in translation through text.

[Biomega]

Someone explaining the reasons why they think Pineapple makes for bad pizza in a convincing argument doesn't immediately open it up for debate, it can merely be an elaborated expression of opinion.

That's where we get the problem. That IS a debate, because you're leaving subjective preference as soon as you think there's anything OTHER than subjective preference at work - which is the case by definition if you provide reasoning, something that subjective preference is not subject to. You don't need reasoned justifications for "I don't like X". And I really mean reasoned justification, not just more layers of preference, i.e. "I don't like chocolate, because I hate the taste" is not reasoned justification, it's just more subjective preference. As would be the case for something like "I don't like chocolate because it tastes like ash and dust" since that's purely subjective, too.

If all you're doing is elaborate on a subjective preference, that's fine. Debate begins as soon as you bring in reasoned justification and (implicitly or explicitly) try to convince other people of the validity of your position.

Does it make any difference between someone simply saying it's bad, and someone saying it's bad because X and Y? It's still going to be opinion, and merely saying 'because X and Y' doesn't then make it debateable. It's still an opinion.

That's my point - it's NOT just an opinion anymore as soon as you use it to try and convince someone. If you're saying it's bad because aliens told you so and you read about it in the Bible code... that's cool as long as you purely use that in the sense of subjective preference. As soon as you expect other people TO BELIEVE THAT REASONING, we've left opinion and entered argument. Whether you like it or not.

The whole problem I'm pointing out is that people very much want to blur these lines, because it allows to PRETEND to have an argument using their OPINONS, which gives them the same persuasive power an argument has, but allows them to dodge epistemological responsibility by claiming the immunity to reasoned justification that governs opinions. You can't do that.

[Syegfryed]

I been dwelling over which was worse and I think its safe to say given some time has passed I have come to the conclusion that Rings of Power is better than Wheel of Time, i'll give Rings of Power credit there wasnt enough source material to really run a strong story with the Rings of Power, a lot of stuff in the The Silmarillion is more notes than story, so they had to fill in gaps and make their own story even if the source material that they do use counters a lot of the notes of The Silmarillion. Its not like Hoibbit or Lord of the Rings where theres a full story there..

I don't think that is rly a credit.

See, they had a blank canvas, to paint a picture, using the paints provided by tolkien, they throw all in the toilet and shat all over the canvas. Because their "original story" is fucking garbage

Even if you ignore how they ruined tolkien canon, it is not a good fantasy show. they had opportunity to make something original, but they didn't.

Honestly, i cannot say is the worst among the two, because im not familiar with wheel of time, but 2022 had so much garbage, like willow and the witcher that is hard to put one on top.

[Triceron]

That's where we get the problem. That IS a debate, because you're leaving subjective preference as soon as you think there's anything OTHER than subjective preference at work - which is the case by definition if you provide reasoning, something that subjective preference is not subject to.

The problem with that is nothing at work, in context, is other than subjective preference. The context IS subjective, completely and utterly. Presenting any reason for thinking something is bad is contextually opinion. All reasoning is opinion. It would only be outside of subjectivity if something is intentionally stated as fact. And as to my previous example, "Salty and Sweet shouldn't be mixed" is a statement that sounds like it's presenting fact, when contextually it is purely opinion. It's intention is not to be taken as a factual statement, though you will see people take it out of context, mostly because it's so damned easy to cherry pick text out of context.

The whole problem I'm pointing out is that people very much want to blur these lines, because it allows to PRETEND to have an argument using their OPINONS, which gives them the same persuasive power an argument has, but allows them to dodge epistemological responsibility by claiming the immunity to reasoned justification that governs opinions. You can't do that.

Persuasive arguments of opinion aren't immediately set in the realm of debate. A debate ONLY works if both parties are interested in having one. It's a formal way of argumentation. Most of the time, people are merely expressing opinions and arguments in a conversational context. There is a difference between debate and dialogue/discussion. Persuasive arguments can be employed for the sake of broadening perspective and understanding without 'wanting to win'.

And often times the messaging gets mixed up. In Rhorle's case, intentionally for the sake of shitposting.

[Syegfryed]

But that's my point really. Someone can say "Pineapple on pizza is bad pizza" without it being up for debate. It is an expression of opinion, even if the statement may seem objectively debateable. It really isn't, because the intent is still rooted in opinion.

What constitutes 'bad pizza' is not really up for debate. It's gonna be on the level of 'I think it's bad' 'I don't think it's bad' except it happens to get drawn out for pages on end because no one is agreeing on this being a matter of opinion and merely leaving it at 'Cool.'

Having a reason to back an opinion is not always intended as a means to convince other people to have to agree upon the same standards. Sometimes it's just simply elaborating a position and why we feel the way we do. I think that's the crux of most 'debates' on here. They're misconstruances of opinion as debateable points (when they aren't intended to be), and it's mostly pointless if neither side is interested in hearing each other out.

I said before, but some people here think a side forum in mmochampion should be like a senate debate, with people trying to bait others into certain arguments so they can win, and not an informal way of conversation about pointless stuff, when you are bored or have free time.

If you say "pineapple pizza is bad pizza" you get flocked by people demanding "proof of that statement" and blablabla

[Triceron]

I said before, but some people here think a side forum in mmochampion should be like a senate debate, with people trying to bait others into certain arguments so they can win, and not an informal way of conversation about pointless stuff, when you are bored or have free time.

If you say "pineapple pizza is bad pizza" you get flocked by people demanding "proof of that statement" and blablabla

That is the nature of this place.

We're all aware of it.

Honest discussions don't last long. It's the shit that floats to the top. (And I openly to admit to shitting a lot here :P)

[Triceron]

it’s just a made up absurd storyline.

Adequately describes the show :P

[Biomega]

Persuasive arguments of opinion aren't immediately set in the realm of debate. A debate ONLY works if both parties are interested in having one.

Don't use debate as a synonym for conversation - two or more parties talking isn't automatically a debate. Debate involves persuasion - if you're trying to convince another party of a position, you're having a debate. The other party may walk away, sure, and then the debate ends; but at no point are we exchanging words and trying to convince the other side of our positions and it's NOT a debate. Which means that if you're only proffering opinions, you're not having a debate, only a conversation; and that ALSO means you don't get to convince anyone. You can't have it both ways.

It's a formal way of argumentation. Most of the time, people are merely expressing opinions and arguments in a conversational context.

The formality of the situation is irrelevant. I mean debate in a rhetorical sense, not in an organizational sense (like e.g. a scheduled public debate). The context doesn't matter. You can have a debate on the bus. You can have a debate while getting your hair cut. You can have a debate while hanging upside down from the top of a mountain. Doesn't matter. You offer a position and wish to convince someone else of its validity - you're in a debate. And that means you need to bring arguments, not opinions.

Persuasive arguments of opinion

That's an oxymoron. You can't have "arguments of opinion" (at least not in the sense I have used those terms). Opinions are subjective preferences without justification. Arguments are persuasive positions with reasoned justifications. They're mutually exclusive. Opinions have no persuasive power, arguments do. You cannot use opinions to convince someone of your positions, and you cannot use arguments to justify subjective preference - by definition.

If you want to use "argument" as a synonym for debate or conversation or whatever, fine, but that's not what I'm talking about when I use the word here, so please don't use it that way with me so we don't get confused.