When two or more people debate, argue or try to debunk each other, who is the judge of who won or what got debunked or not?

When two or more people debate, argue or try to debunk each other, who is the judge of who won or what got debunked or not?

Many times when two or people argue, debate or try to debunk each other, one person has more facts and truth than the other or says it better than the other. Then each person still declares they are right and/or declares they debunked the other. Many times one person is clearly wrong but they still claim they are right afterwards even though they can't refute the facts and truth of the other. So what happens sometimes is the one who was wrong or debunked says they wasn't wrong or debunked when someone else that wasn't part of the debate or argument tells them they were wrong or debunked. Unfortunately since there is no court this is in then it go backs in forth for a long time. What seems to happen is each person who viewed the debate or argument determines within themselves who won and who what was debunked wether they research the informatuon or not,, which results into each person making claims of what is right or wrong whether it is actually right or wrong or not.

So who or what is the judge or is it every single person who views it the judge?
 

LifeIn

Active member
If those people agree on a referee beforehand, that referee would decide. If there is no agreed-upon referee, then there is a possibility that one side will convince the other side by appealing to values they hold in common. If there are no values they hold in common, the question of who won the debate might not ever be decided.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
If those people agree on a referee beforehand, that referee would decide. If there is no agreed-upon referee, then there is a possibility that one side will convince the other side by appealing to values they hold in common. If there are no values they hold in common, the question of who won the debate might not ever be decided.
The Nobel Prize committee is referee. Your Mann lied about being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
You can answer this question yourself, JJ:

If you get into an argument with someone else, who decides who won?
 

Gus Bovona

Active member
When two or more people debate, argue or try to debunk each other, who is the judge of who won or what got debunked or not?

Many times when two or people argue, debate or try to debunk each other, one person has more facts and truth than the other or says it better than the other. Then each person still declares they are right and/or declares they debunked the other. Many times one person is clearly wrong but they still claim they are right afterwards even though they can't refute the facts and truth of the other. So what happens sometimes is the one who was wrong or debunked says they wasn't wrong or debunked when someone else that wasn't part of the debate or argument tells them they were wrong or debunked. Unfortunately since there is no court this is in then it go backs in forth for a long time. What seems to happen is each person who viewed the debate or argument determines within themselves who won and who what was debunked wether they research the informatuon or not,, which results into each person making claims of what is right or wrong whether it is actually right or wrong or not.

So who or what is the judge or is it every single person who views it the judge?
Fortunately, it seems as if there is no supreme, absolute judge who is lord over us all who will lay down a ruling as to what is correct or not. We have to decide that for ourselves. It's a good thing that it's each person's responsibility; otherwise, we'd be children dependent on Big Daddy and Mommy.

It's hard work, and sometimes it never finishes. But one thing that will help would be if the disagreeing parties sincerely and truly were pledged to follow the evidence and logic whoever it leads, including to a different conclusion than the one they currently hold, or may even have held for a long time, and are devoted to. That's another difficult thing for a lot of people, but it's really essential.
 

Torin

Active member
When two or more people debate, argue or try to debunk each other, who is the judge of who won or what got debunked or not?

Many times when two or people argue, debate or try to debunk each other, one person has more facts and truth than the other or says it better than the other. Then each person still declares they are right and/or declares they debunked the other. Many times one person is clearly wrong but they still claim they are right afterwards even though they can't refute the facts and truth of the other. So what happens sometimes is the one who was wrong or debunked says they wasn't wrong or debunked when someone else that wasn't part of the debate or argument tells them they were wrong or debunked. Unfortunately since there is no court this is in then it go backs in forth for a long time. What seems to happen is each person who viewed the debate or argument determines within themselves who won and who what was debunked wether they research the informatuon or not,, which results into each person making claims of what is right or wrong whether it is actually right or wrong or not.

So who or what is the judge or is it every single person who views it the judge?
Each person viewing the exchange has to judge for themselves. There is no alternative to that. Even if there was an Ultimate Judge, each person would have to judge for themselves that the Ultimate Judge was trustworthy and accurate, so we'd be back to everyone judging for themselves, at least at the fundamental level.
 
The unwillingness to deal with believable consequences that are detrimental to the person seems to be the the judge. Whoever has the power to push that consequence is the judge. Otherwise each person is only right to themselves or people who agree.
 
Last edited:

Backup

Active member
When two or more people debate, argue or try to debunk each other, who is the judge of who won or what got debunked or not?

Many times when two or people argue, debate or try to debunk each other, one person has more facts and truth than the other or says it better than the other. Then each person still declares they are right and/or declares they debunked the other. Many times one person is clearly wrong but they still claim they are right afterwards even though they can't refute the facts and truth of the other. So what happens sometimes is the one who was wrong or debunked says they wasn't wrong or debunked when someone else that wasn't part of the debate or argument tells them they were wrong or debunked. Unfortunately since there is no court this is in then it go backs in forth for a long time. What seems to happen is each person who viewed the debate or argument determines within themselves who won and who what was debunked wether they research the informatuon or not,, which results into each person making claims of what is right or wrong whether it is actually right or wrong or not.

So who or what is the judge or is it every single person who views it the judge?
All educated people know how to do basic research and know what qualities as a legitimate source.

Crazy creationists, climate deniers, flat earthers, moon landing deniers, COVID deniers, conspiracy theorists, and anti-intellectuals don’t understand this, and everyone sees them as objectively wrong and kind of stupid.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
When two or more people debate, argue or try to debunk each other, who is the judge of who won or what got debunked or not?
We have one rabid left winger who says I claimed to be the largest organic farmer in Texas. I posted that I have never owned land in Texas.

How can bunkster prove his claim?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
We have one rabid left winger who says I claimed to be the largest organic farmer in Texas. I posted that I have never owned land in Texas.

How can bunkster prove his claim?
What does it matter? You are constantly boasting here, and have done for years, but you fail to grasp that none of us have any provenance here. We bring nothing at all to this site but our posts. It is solely on our posts that we are judged, not on unverifiable claims of expertise, education or experience. Credible posters are believed, even if they are lying. We cannot tell. Non-credible posters are not believed, even if they happen to be telling the truth. If you find it irksome that people don't believe what you post about yourself and your family, you have no-one to blame but yourself. Just try being a little more credible.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
So when a welsch jailer lies to me about my education, experience and credentials without a lick of research, should anyone care? Bunkster is automatically self debunked.
 

J regia

Well-known member
So when a welsch jailer lies to me about my education, experience and credentials without a lick of research, should anyone care? Bunkster is automatically self debunked.
So how many bologna bulls have you circumcised today, and how many PhDs have you got out of Cornflakes packets?
 
Top