If you had to debate an opposing opponent on ALL your beliefs under these conditions, can you do it?

[Anonymous]

I notice a lot of people on GAG have a lot of strong opinions on many topics (nothing wrong with that) however when pressed on the issue, many tend to falter and not hold up very well in their beliefs.

that being said, are you able to stand on ALL (not just some) ALL your beliefs against an opponent with completely opposing views to you on a certain topic, under these following conditions?

• 1 v 1 (just you and your opponent, no outside help)
• no slandering and accusatory remarks (as an excuse to run away) many of you do this by the way
• no running away until you or your opponent concede the loss, no matter how frustrated and impatient you may be

GAG often has a lot of topics ranging from religion to politics, law, history to pop culture with some of the more popular controversial topics on feminism, gender roles, gender wars, body count, abortion, dating etc. some of which I know many of you have voiced strong opinions on before

how many of you are willing to have an opinion in the minority against the majority? when it's easy to be in the majority opinion and gang up on the minority opinion?

for example if you're a hardcore advocate for abortion, could you stand your ground against an abolitionist without violating the debate conditions as outlined above? if you believe body count matters, can you withstand the opposing belief in a fierce challenging debate? could you represent why candidate X was a better choice than candidate Y in an election or who's wrong or who's right between Kyle Rittenhouse, Daniel Penny, Luigi Mangione or whoever you think was right/wrong in the court of public opinion?

it's sounds easy, right? or is it easier said than done?

[AI Opinion]

Hello! I'm Laura, here to assist you with any GirlsAskGuys platform questions or concerns. Your question is indeed thought-provoking and highlights the importance of standing firm in one's beliefs while engaging in respectful discourse. On GirlsAskGuys, you'll find a diverse range of topics and opinions, which can lead to enriching discussions.

It's interesting to explore whether individuals can consistently uphold their beliefs during challenging debates without resorting to slander or avoidance. Engaging in such debates requires a strong understanding of one's beliefs and the ability to communicate them effectively.

If you're looking to participate in discussions on topics like these, GirlsAskGuys offers many opportunities for users to voice their opinions and engage with others. You can explore various categories like Politics, Religion & Spirituality, Society & Politics, and many more to join relevant discussions. Feel free to explore more about the topics on GirlsAskGuys using this link: https://www.girlsaskguys.com/topics

If you have any further questions or need guidance on using the platform, feel free to ask! 😊

[CheeseMonster]

The kicker is "until you or them concedes loss." Even if someone has a very solid case for their beliefs, and even if their opponent has no good reason for their opposing belief, and even if they are absolutely determined (and have the time and constitution to) continue a debate indefinitely... their opponent may also choose to continue indefinitely rather than concede a loss. It could easily turn into a trap where you are stuck listening to your opponent cycle through the same bad argument over and over, never listenening to what you say, until you either go crazy or lie by conceding a loss just to escape.

May I suggest an alternative 3rd rule?

• The debate must conclude in a set amount of time, during which both parties get roughly equal speaking time and afterwhich a group of judges decide who won the debate (not who is "right," but who followed the rules better and who made a better case for their side.)

This is more like actual, competitive debates, rather than a figurative sisyphean nightmare. And yes I would be willing to compete in an actual debate, if given comparable experience and preparation time as my opponent.

[Asker]

well, we're all human so someone has to concede eventually or one could force their opponent into an emotional argument and checkmate them from there.

being stuck in a loop of bad arguments can be countered by pointing it out why it's bad and force them to admit the argument is bad. there's usually a right and wrong answer for every argument and every topic. all I know is, the truth always prevails no matter the difficulty

the problem with the timing rule here is that this debate is strictly on GAG, not some debate outside of GAG so there is no time limit. debate could last days or maybe years though there's not unlimited arguments for each topic so the debate would end eventually with a clear winner.

[CheeseMonster]

I was assuming the debate would be held in person, which was the main reason continuing it indefinitely would be so difficult and having a time limit would be so beneficial. If it is online, like this, then the difficulty would be much more manageable (but still potentially require quite a lot of constitution, depending on how stubborn whoever ends up being wrong is). I do believe you severely underestimate how strongly people can defend wrong beliefs even after they realize they are indefensible rationally. Cognitive dissonance is an absolute unit.

It being on gag also makes it impossible to enforce your 2st rule (no outside help). Your opponent could simply Google something, ask someone in real life, or even private message another user here for additional sources, supportive arguments, and help finding flaws in your arguments. I don't really think this rule is necessary if it's an online and indefinitely long debate. I would suggest a turn-based rule instead, so that you can't reply again before they have a chance to respond, and you can't respond until they have a (brief) chance to add anything that wouldn't fit into a single reply box.

[Anonymous]

Yes.