That's why you use rhetoric, sophistry, dirty tricks, stage magic, appeals to emotion, and physical violence to win "debates".
Debating about facts with well sourced information and arguments is a bad way to change people's minds. Scaring them, bullying them, flattering them, misleading them, tricking them, confusing them? Much more reliable.
I mean, from what I understand, yeah, it is better. Reasoned argument not only doesn't change people's minds, it often causes them to re-trench in their exsting beliefs to protect their ego and sense of self.
Whereas a good polemic or some rhetoric side-steps that whole thing. Instead of telling them they're wrong and explaining why you just try to get them real, real angry about something you're angry about.
That's why you use rhetoric, sophistry, dirty tricks, stage magic, appeals to emotion, and physical violence to win "debates".
Debating about facts with well sourced information and arguments is a bad way to change people's minds. Scaring them, bullying them, flattering them, misleading them, tricking them, confusing them? Much more reliable.
Is it actually better though? If you convince someone through those means, they'll just change their mind for the next person who uses those tactics
I mean, from what I understand, yeah, it is better. Reasoned argument not only doesn't change people's minds, it often causes them to re-trench in their exsting beliefs to protect their ego and sense of self.
Whereas a good polemic or some rhetoric side-steps that whole thing. Instead of telling them they're wrong and explaining why you just try to get them real, real angry about something you're angry about.