Why Must "I" Be Right And Everyone Else Wrong?

[FTW (For The Wynn)]

This is more of a philosophical question, so those of you who hate philosophy may not want to partake.

Anyway, in the title, I don't mean "I" as in myself personally. I mean this as in anyone. Why do you have to be the one who is always right? In any argument you partake in, you probably feel as if you are the one who has to be right, even if you aren't. Even if the argument doesn't honestly have a right or a wrong, you have to be right.

For example, if I ask you this question:

[b] [url="http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/48293"]48÷2(9+3) = ?[/url][/b]

You will probably see a huge argument over what the answer is. Why? Because it has 2 answers, 2 and 288. Both equally valid because of order of operations. Even calculators give varying answers with this.

Another good example is religion vs science. Personally, I find it a stupid argument, but people apparently must argue it, especially over creationism vs evolution. This is actually what led me to think about this topic thread. Anyone who has been on the internet longer than 5 minutes has probably seen an argument between two such persons. But, doesn't it seem odd that both must argue and "be the victor" when both sides teach respect? Take "The Innocence of Muslims" and how the Islamic world is wanting the death of America for having made that movie. Most people cannot understand why this is so hated. Some say that the movie itself has nothing to do with it except as a catalyst of revolt and it was just an Al Qaeda plot to get the people to hate America. In which case anything could have set them off. I have also heard about how in parts of the Islamic religion it is considered almost sacrilegious to show Muhammad's face. And that the movie also ridiculed their beliefs. Which, in my mind, would go down like making a black joke near a group of black people: Not very good.

Or, perhaps to give people something to think about a little closer to home, you can see a similar mindset when two people reviewing cards offer a differing review and then clash over it. Sometimes one is "right" and one is "wrong". But, sometimes they are both "right".

Now, before we comment, I am not looking for an argument of beliefs in this thread. So, therefore, I am not stating my beliefs here (although I am sure anyone can reason them out should they choose to). So, while I encourage an argument over facts, don't go overboard with it. This isn't about why you feel any religion is garbage, or why evolution is a complete affront to God. This is about why we have to argue everything, even when it is pointless.

And as to the point of this topic, I am hoping that I learn from it. And I hope you do, too.

[Tentacruel]

To answer the first one:
Because socially speaking, creationism is the equivelant of believing in unicorns, so if people can do something to validate their own beliefs, (in this case demonizing others), they will.

[FTW (For The Wynn)]

Alright, but then I will offer a counterpoint. Isn't the theory that all life spawned from primordial ooze about as unbelievable?

[DARKPLANT RISING]

You guys still think religion V.S. science is an argument based on logic and common sense?

No, of course not. Religion V.S. Science is an [b]emotional argument[/b] in which right and wrong are determined by the size of your ego, not the backup evidence. This especially goes for the stupid evangelists. Okay, maybe it's not right to call them stupid in an English forum but who cares, they're stupid in my eyes.

See, the only reason religion is considered to be even a match against science is because emotional arguments generally win against sophisticated logic.

Let's say a three-year-old is crying her head off, screaming she wants a cupcake. Her mother will probably buy her one, even if they had promised earlier that day that she wouldn't eat another cupcake for the day because she already had three in the morning.

The same logic goes for most arguments in the world. Sheer emotional conflict can't be solved by a matter of black/white. Everything must remain gray, because otherwise that aforementioned three-year-old baby would go on a wild rampage through the house, trying to wreck the sofa apart and such. Sorta get what I mean?

So, my belief is that right and wrong are not always based on logic or facts. Most of my arguments are based on those, but a majority of the world's supposed "truths" revolve around emotions, without any logical backup. As much as I hate them, I can't change that given I'm not their boss or anything. So...I guess I have to deal with it.

[BehindTheMask]

[quote name='GodWynn' timestamp='1347926899' post='6026944']
This is more of a philosophical question, so those of you who hate philosophy may not want to partake.

Anyway, in the title, I don't mean "I" as in myself personally. I mean this as in anyone. Why do you have to be the one who is always right? In any argument you partake in, you probably feel as if you are the one who has to be right, even if you aren't. Even if the argument doesn't honestly have a right or a wrong, you have to be right.

For example, if I ask you this question:

[b] [url="http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/48293"]48÷2(9+3) = ?[/url][/b]

You will probably see a huge argument over what the answer is. Why? Because it has 2 answers, 2 and 288. Both equally valid because of order of operations. Even calculators give varying answers with this.

Another good example is religion vs science. Personally, I find it a stupid argument, but people apparently must argue it, especially over creationism vs evolution. This is actually what led me to think about this topic thread. Anyone who has been on the internet longer than 5 minutes has probably seen an argument between two such persons. But, doesn't it seem odd that both must argue and "be the victor" when both sides teach respect? Take "The Innocence of Muslims" and how the Islamic world is wanting the death of America for having made that movie. Most people cannot understand why this is so hated. Some say that the movie itself has nothing to do with it except as a catalyst of revolt and it was just an Al Qaeda plot to get the people to hate America. In which case anything could have set them off. I have also heard about how in parts of the Islamic religion it is considered almost sacrilegious to show Muhammad's face. And that the movie also ridiculed their beliefs. Which, in my mind, would go down like making a black joke near a group of black people: Not very good.

Or, perhaps to give people something to think about a little closer to home, you can see a similar mindset when two people reviewing cards offer a differing review and then clash over it. Sometimes one is "right" and one is "wrong". But, sometimes they are both "right".

Now, before we comment, I am not looking for an argument of beliefs in this thread. So, therefore, I am not stating my beliefs here (although I am sure anyone can reason them out should they choose to). So, while I encourage an argument over facts, don't go overboard with it. This isn't about why you feel any religion is garbage, or why evolution is a complete affront to God. This is about why we have to argue everything, even when it is pointless.

And as to the point of this topic, I am hoping that I learn from it. And I hope you do, too.
[/quote]

[b][url="http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/48293"]48÷2(9+3)[/url] doesn't have two answers, it is just written terribly. [/b]If it was written correctly, there would be an extra set of parenthesis either to seperate 48 and 2, or 2(9+3).

Secondly, there needs to "be a victor" because truth is non-relative. For example claim "A" and claim "not A" cannot be true at the same time.

For example,

1) The Holocaust never happened
2) The Holocaust happened.

If true was relative, then both 1) and 2) would be correct, however this is impossible. Something cannot happen and also not happen. So, we can see that logically, only one position CAN be right.

Thirdly, it is against the Islamic religion for any depiction of Muhammed to be shown.

Fourthly, I have made a few black jokes around black friends, they laughed.

[quote name='Darkplant - VENOM' timestamp='1347980418' post='6027317']
You guys still think religion V.S. science is an argument based on logic and common sense?

No, of course not. Religion V.S. Science is an [b]emotional argument[/b] in which right and wrong are determined by the size of your ego, not the backup evidence. This especially goes for the stupid evangelists. Okay, maybe it's not right to call them stupid in an English forum but who cares, they're stupid in my eyes.

See, the only reason religion is considered to be even a match against science is because emotional arguments generally win against sophisticated logic.

Let's say a three-year-old is crying her head off, screaming she wants a cupcake. Her mother will probably buy her one, even if they had promised earlier that day that she wouldn't eat another cupcake for the day because she already had three in the morning.

The same logic goes for most arguments in the world. Sheer emotional conflict can't be solved by a matter of black/white. Everything must remain gray, because otherwise that aforementioned three-year-old baby would go on a wild rampage through the house, trying to wreck the sofa apart and such. Sorta get what I mean?

So, my belief is that right and wrong are not always based on logic or facts. Most of my arguments are based on those, but a majority of the world's supposed "truths" revolve around emotions, without any logical backup. As much as I hate them, I can't change that given I'm not their boss or anything. So...I guess I have to deal with it.
[/quote]

Firstly, Science vs. Religion is about logic and common sense. Just because people use an argument from emotion doesnt mean they are correct.

Secondly, 3 cupcakes in the morning? That child probably will get diabetees. Also, a 3 year old going on a rampage would be hilarious. Id pay to see it...if it was more dangerous.

Thirdly, see my second point in my response to OP. Truth is not dependant on wether or not you believe in it.

If you want to make an epistomological point that truths cannot be known....well thats a different argument than the one you are trying to make.

[SpectralMaliceX]

It's all down to human nature everybody hates to admit that they're wrong in an argument, because that would hurt their pride.

[Agro]

Because I can only prove that I exist.

I'm the only thing I can trust exists if there happens to be some sort of demon tricking me into thinking I'm doing every action I take.

I can not be tricked if I do not exist. Therefore I exist.

But I cannot prove, without doubt, that you all exist.

So obviously that's what's going on here. How do I even know you exist? How do I even know that your argument is valid if your argument has no basis? How can I be sure you have a basis if I'm not even sure you exist?

[SpectralMaliceX]

[quote name='Agro' timestamp='1348036722' post='6027808']
Because I can only prove that I exist.

I'm the only thing I can trust exists if there happens to be some sort of demon tricking me into thinking I'm doing every action I take.

I can not be tricked if I do not exist. Therefore I exist.

But I cannot prove, without doubt, that you all exist.

So obviously that's what's going on here. How do I even know you exist? How do I even know that your argument is valid if your argument has no basis? How can I be sure you have a basis if I'm not even sure you exist?
[/quote]

You know we exist by our responses to your post.

[Agro]

[quote name='SpectralMaliceX' timestamp='1348047728' post='6027840']
You know we exist by our responses to your post.
[/quote]Ah, but I do not. For I cannot prove that your response is not simply just a trick of a demon trickster making me think that there is someone responding, when in actuality, there is none.

For a demon trickster could have complete control over my senses and what I take in about the outside world, therefore there is nothing I take in by my senses for which I can believe without doubt.

[Shotgun Cultist]

I'd say it's mostly down to human nature, striving to become the dominant creature in the pack/herd/group, in this case the pack/herd/group is the entirety of the human population able to think, act or talk (as taming those rare members of the populous with the ability to do all 3 seems impossible) , this craving for social and, apparently, emotional dominance would drive we primitive humans to view our own point as right and correct, don't you think?

Secondly, humans at a certain stage in life (usually beginning at around 8 years old) must, without question and without reason, maintain appearances in the public eye (this much has been proven), factor in the animalistic nature of humans; the insatiable quest for dominance in the pack/herd/group, and we can deduce that humanity cannot admit to being "wrong" in the eyes of other humans, we would appear weak and lose our standing in the group as a whole.

[quote] [size=4][font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(251, 253, 254)]Secondly, there needs to "be a victor" because truth is non-relative. For example claim "A" and claim "not A" cannot be true at the same time.[/background][/font][/size]

[size=4][font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(251, 253, 254)]For example,[/background][/font]

[font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(251, 253, 254)]1) The Holocaust never happened[/background][/font]
[font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(251, 253, 254)]2) The Holocaust happened.[/background][/font][/size]


[size=4][font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(251, 253, 254)]If true was relative, then both 1) and 2) would be correct, however this is impossible. Something cannot happen and also not happen. So, we can see that logically, only one position CAN be right. [/background][/font][/size][/quote]

this is simply a reply to this, take a look into quantum physics, looking specifically at both the theories of quantum suicide (a man holds a gun to his head and pulls the trigger, in that exact instance, two infinite chains of reality are created; the gun fires and he dies, or the gun jams and he doesn't, plus infinitely more chains of every possible outcome) and other dimensions, now based on that do you not think it could be possible that, either in some alternate plane of existence the holocaust actually didn't happen?, and that that alternate plane, or other dimension or whatever the hell it is operates at the exact same physical limitations and expectations as our universe, our reality in which it did happen, this would mean that down to the last millionth of a nanosecond would be duplicated in this universe allowing every event and both an equal opposite or unequal variation to occur within the exact time frames?

Now let's look at what just happened here, i displayed a need to be right, such is human nature, nothing proves i am right and nothing proves i'm not, yet I strive to maintain my appearance in the eyes of the rest of this forum and defend my view so as not to appear weak, I, just like every other user that posts on this forum are examples of this rule in some way, this reasoning is my defense of my point, to assert my potential yet easily defeated challenge to the dominance of the group.

If you actually sat and read all that I commend you on your patience, thank you

[SpectralMaliceX]

@Agro:
Assuming you're under the control of a demon trickster that would verify your own existence in a reality, but what's to say that the reality in which you exist is real and that you're not just a piece of carved wood longing to be real? Then your existence is in question. Also give up the dope bro you're seeing doctor who villains.

On topic:

People have to be right all the time because if they were proven wrong then they are seen as only regular, and humanity as a whole likes to think of themselves as being better than everything/everyone else.

[Dwarven King]

[quote name='Shotgun Cultist' timestamp='1348071824' post='6028010']
I'd say it's mostly down to human nature, striving to become the dominant creature in the pack/herd/group, in this case the pack/herd/group is the entirety of the human population able to think, act or talk (as taming those rare members of the populous with the ability to do all 3 seems impossible) , this craving for social and, apparently, emotional dominance would drive we primitive humans to view our own point as right and correct, don't you think?

Secondly, humans at a certain stage in life (usually beginning at around 8 years old) must, without question and without reason, maintain appearances in the public eye (this much has been proven), factor in the animalistic nature of humans; the insatiable quest for dominance in the pack/herd/group, and we can deduce that humanity cannot admit to being "wrong" in the eyes of other humans, we would appear weak and lose our standing in the group as a whole.



this is simply a reply to this, take a look into quantum physics, looking specifically at both the theories of quantum suicide (a man holds a gun to his head and pulls the trigger, in that exact instance, two infinite chains of reality are created; the gun fires and he dies, or the gun jams and he doesn't, plus infinitely more chains of every possible outcome) and other dimensions, now based on that do you not think it could be possible that, either in some alternate plane of existence the holocaust actually didn't happen?, and that that alternate plane, or other dimension or whatever the hell it is operates at the exact same physical limitations and expectations as our universe, our reality in which it did happen, this would mean that down to the last millionth of a nanosecond would be duplicated in this universe allowing every event and both an equal opposite or unequal variation to occur within the exact time frames?

Now let's look at what just happened here, i displayed a need to be right, such is human nature, nothing proves i am right and nothing proves i'm not, yet I strive to maintain my appearance in the eyes of the rest of this forum and defend my view so as not to appear weak, I, just like every other user that posts on this forum are examples of this rule in some way, this reasoning is my defense of my point, to assert my potential yet easily defeated challenge to the dominance of the group.

If you actually sat and read all that I commend you on your patience, thank you
[/quote]

I read all of your post and everyone else's! =D

OT: We simply wish to feel superior. Nothing else. ^^

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

OK I really want this one in debates! Come on LZ you gotta admit that was quite the intelligent post!

Aside from that I basically dumb my opinion down to this simple rule.

"My opinion is fact until I am proven wrong with satisfactory evidence."
If I treat everything I believe like an "opinion" then I honestly must not believe in it at all. I basically guarantee my doubt's about the opinion altogether which is not a proper stance in defending it.

[SpectralMaliceX]

Dwarven just gave you all an abridged version of what I'd already said.

[Legend Zero]

I honestly don't know why it wasn't in Debates in the first place. Was seeing how everyone posted, but it has indeed made itself Debate-worthy. Move

[Dwarven King]

[quote name='SpectralMaliceX' timestamp='1348099813' post='6028294']
Dwarven just gave you all an abridged version of what I'd already said.
[/quote]

And we all know the Abridged version is quite excellent, and sometimes even better. :3

[SpectralMaliceX]

I recently had an argument/heated debate with a work mate with a w

[Dwarven King]

[quote name='SpectralMaliceX' timestamp='1348100332' post='6028304']
I recently had an argument/heated debate with a work mate with a w
[/quote]

A work mate with a w? I don't understand. .-.

[SpectralMaliceX]

[quote name='Dwarven King' timestamp='1348100414' post='6028306']


A work mate with a w? I don't understand. .-.
[/quote]

I was going to start a off topic rant, but decided to make it a thread in debates.

[bury the year]

[quote name='BehindTheMask' timestamp='1348012708' post='6027655']
For example,
1) The Holocaust never happened
2) The Holocaust happened.
If true was relative, then both 1) and 2) would be correct, however this is impossible.
[/quote]

If this were the case, then I could undeniably say that a purple elephant is sitting on your head. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion"]Principle of explosion[/url], my friend. [/funfact]

[Agro]

[quote name='SpectralMaliceX' timestamp='1348098623' post='6028271']
@Agro:
Assuming you're under the control of a demon trickster that would verify your own existence in a reality, but what's to say that the reality in which you exist is real and that you're not just a piece of carved wood longing to be real? Then your existence is in question. Also give up the dope bro you're seeing doctor who villains.
[/quote]How do I know I even have a physical body? I cannot prove that I'm not being tricked into thinking that I am.

The only thing I can prove is that I exist.

1. I think.
therefore
2. I am.

And I'm not on anything. I'm only giving you a logical reason for why people act as they do.

[Hydra of Ages]

For the people who aren't getting it, Agro is reiterating a chunk of Rene Descartes' famous philosophical meditations. The idea is that since the individual senses can be tricked, in order to be entirely certain of our own existence, we have to be able to prove it using an infallible method.

I'll admit I'm not entirely certain where he sees the connection between the topic at hand and the father of post-Socratic western philosophy, however.

[SpectralMaliceX]

Sorry for the late reply Agro was swamped on another forum, yes I know what you was/are doing but I just couldn't help toying with you.

I also know you're not on anything it was a marvelous new invention called a joke.

I do have this to ask you this though Agro how do you know that all your thoughts of your existence mean you exist and are not a demon lying to you?

~~~~~~~~~~~

[Kyng's Old Account]

[quote name='Agro' timestamp='1348187105' post='6028971']
How do I know I even have a physical body? I cannot prove that I'm not being tricked into thinking that I am.

The only thing I can prove is that I exist.

1. I think.
therefore
2. I am.

And I'm not on anything. I'm only giving you a logical reason for why people act as they do.
[/quote]Cognito Ergo Sum, Rene Descartes. That deserves a f*cking Philosophy Rep.
[quote name='SpectralMaliceX' timestamp='1348218238' post='6029134']
Sorry for the late reply Agro was swamped on another forum, yes I know what you was/are doing but I just couldn't help toying with you.

I also know you're not on anything it was a marvelous new invention called a joke.

I do have this to ask you this though Agro how do you know that all your thoughts of your existence mean you exist and are not a demon lying to you?

~~~~~~~~~~~
[/quote]Allow me to answer that.

It matters not if Agro's thoughts are, in fact, being toyed with by a demon. Rather, the sheer fact itself that Agro has the thoughts in the first places implies his own existence. Allow me to demonstrate:

1 - Agro can think.
2 - You must exist to be able to think.
3 - It would be illogical to believe something non-existant can think.
C - Agro thinks, and therefore exists.

[Agro]

Or, in simple man's terms.

I cannot be tricked by an evil demon if I do not exist in the first place.