MatchesMalone said:
You answer your own question below. A person changes their own opinion, unless they are converted through other means. Brainwashers and cults do it all the time.
My point was that the active role of the other person making the argument is what results in the change.
You cannot support an opinion with facts. An opinion is an opinion because facts are not present. If you have facts that support an opinion, the opinion becomes objective. It becomes a fact itself.
If I say Dean Cain is the best Superman (uggh), what facts can I present? There are no facts to validate that statement and make it true. But it is true for whoever believes it. Thus, an opinion is born.
But there is still a REASON you think this, and that's what I'm asking for: reason.
SHH Posters stomping around screaming "The suit is fine! it's my opinion and I have a right to it therefore you're all wrong and stupid and in denial!" is not a reason. It's nothing: it's a load of crap.
Opinions are supported by evidence; it's just that simple. Well, rather they SHOULD be, and often are. If it doesn't boil down to factual data eventually, it holds no weight. This is the error I see often on these forums. People who argue that because
they like something, it must be the best, universally, and that anyone who says different is stupid, lying, or in denial. This is chiefly the mode of though I try to prevent. That is what I mean by being unreasonable. When someone
argues something, they need to support their argument with something besides the fact that they "like it."
It would probably be more accurate to say my problem is with unreasonable
arguments.
Sure, if the person was impartial to begin with. But that, often, is not the case. People who have opposing positions will ARGUE the position. Like I said, debate does not mean arguing with an opponent. Debate means presenting a position to an impartial third party who will form THEIR opinion based on the opposing arguments.
There is nothing unreasonable about arguing. The fact of the matter is that the only thing I've identified as "unreasonable" is pretending that your likes or dislikes dictate what is right or wrong, better or worse universally.
Furthermore:
de·bate
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v. intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete. To fight or quarrel.
If I enter into a debate with the goal of strictly changing the viewpoint of my opponent, it is still a debate.
I also do not concede that someone has to be "impartial" to consider new evidence and change their mind about something. It certainly makes the process easier, though.
There is no objective fact that can support an opinion. Opinions are subjective. Not objective. Any evidence would be subjective as well, which is ridiculous because then you have to debate the opinions of the evidence to back up your original opinion. Futile.
I already addressed that above. But if you do want to get right down to it, I suppose it does end up being a loop. For example: Pre-Miller Batman is the proper interpretation of Batman (This does not represent my actual thoughts on the matter; it's just an example). Why? Because that material is greater in number than post-Miller Batman material. This would be based upon my secondary opinion that a larger amount of material constitutes the
right interpretation of Batman and so on. So I suppose you're correct in that regard.
If you want to simply throw your opinions out there, and maybe convert somebody by presenting your opinion, then, like I said in my previous post, you are not arguing. You are not debating. You are presenting. No different than a pamphlet at a library about abortion or Christian values.
I'm beginning to see your point, but I would contend that a debate is little more than
presenting arguments (Such as those found in a pamphlet), allowing the other person to present, then presenting a counter. Even an attempt to debunk an argument still boils down to a presentation of evidence in an attempt to perform the debunking.
And it would be so damn boring around here if all we did was simply state our opinions and not argue them. That's what's fun.
Whoever suggested we stop arguing? All I suggest is injecting a little
reason into the debate, so we don't have people supporting their opinions with the fact that they're opinions, but instead people supporting their opinions with
actual reasons (Which is to say reasons that extend beyond their own preferences).
You see, my problem with the posts I originally quoted in this thread (about Batman Begins) was that they made flat-out statements without even the slightest effort to qualify those statements with any actual reasons. It was simple "Batman Begins is awesome" opposed to "No it's not." That's crap. That goes nowhere. That's just two people pretending their statements are fact, with no reasoning behind them.
