How normal people argue

Author: Intelligence_06

Posts

Total: 7
Topic's author
#1
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
As that I am a pretty chill person, I don’t start arguments unless the controversial topic greatly affects the world. The last time was a few months ago. I want know how normal people argue, as well as all these questions:

What count as sources in a verbal debate, and how does its justification operate?

Why that logic rarely works on normal arguments with people?

Suppose you are a good debater on DART, then does that mean you will do better in verbal debating? Why or why not?

Can you win against one person of your family in an ordinary argument? Why or why not?

Why is that people often use Ad hominem as the dominant strategy in their arguments?
#2
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
What count as sources in a verbal debate, and how does its justification operate?
nothing, thats why its hard

Why that logic rarely works on normal arguments with people?
a lot of people dont get it

Suppose you are a good debater on DART, then does that mean you will do better in verbal debating? Why or why not?
i think being on dart would give you some advantage

Can you win against one person of your family in an ordinary argument? Why or why not?

yes but i wouldnt want to do that

Why is that people often use Ad hominem as the dominant strategy in their arguments?
#3
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Intelligence_06
forgot to tag you,post above
#4
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Intelligence_06
What is normal, what is ordinary and is there a distinction to be made between a discussion and an argument?

And ad-hominem is usually indicative of a shortage of relevant information, so at that point it's best to walk away with confidence. 
#5
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,349
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
I don't know the answers to your questions.
But you could probably find some users willing to get into verbal discussions/arguments online, with the express purpose of reviewing the debate afterward, perhaps by having a third party ask the two debaters 'separately their thoughts during certain parts of the debate, what their justifications were for why they responded with certain statements, or what emotions they might have felt.
Which could be accomplished by either audio recording the debate, or taking notes.

9 days later

#6
seldiora
seldiora's avatar
Debates: 158
Posts: 352
2
6
10
seldiora's avatar
seldiora
2
6
10
normal persons response

What count as sources in a verbal debate, and how does its justification operate?

news I guess

Why that logic rarely works on normal arguments with people?

emotion

Suppose you are a good debater on DART, then does that mean you will do better in verbal debating? Why or why not?

depends, you might get caught up in stuff

Can you win against one person of your family in an ordinary argument? Why or why not?

not my mom, I get too reckless and dumb

Why is that people often use Ad hominem as the dominant strategy in their arguments?

it works


131 days later

#7
Jasmine
Jasmine's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 126
0
3
6
Jasmine's avatar
Jasmine
0
3
6
People in real life tend to avoid issues, so then they bottle it up...One day, they crack and it's all emotional, no facts. At least, that's w
hat 
happens 
when I agrue.