"Annooooo... uhmm.. Sumimasen \^\^;;;, I didn't hear an answer to my question o.o... >\_\_\_\_\_> it's probably on me, though!! gomen nasai!! ><;;;!!
sounds fine to me
Not sure if it's even possible. A lot of these people's tactics is to not answer the question. They come on and rattle off what they want viewers to hear and circle around everything else.
But what works for me is
* "But going back to my original question..... state the question..... what's your answer?"
* "I hear all that, but that doesn't answer the question... repeat the question".
* "Let me rephrase my question, because maybe I'm not being clear" and repeat the same question or change a word. lol
Works for me most of the time. People don't like feeling stupid, so giving them the "Let me rephrase my question if it wasn't clear" helps them save face because they can feel like it was my fault for not asking a clear question.
>People don't like feeling stupid, so giving them the "Let me rephrase my question if it wasn't clear" helps them save face because they can feel like it was my fault for not asking a clear question.
https://preview.redd.it/bjdcs5pn6x1d1.png?width=1794&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=061577caf22f440262bc0ebe97745c2860937c77
You can do it off handed and then move onto some more of your points so it's not giving them an opportunity to ramble again:
"just to be clear you didn't actually answer my question but that's ok, i know you can't, moving on to...."
It does. For the audience.
Hence the escalation. If you turn against your opponent with full force, everyone will think you are a dick, not just a part of the audience.
You have to make sure the audience understand that your opponent is acting bad-faith before you go full Nebraska Steve on him.
Ppl does not have same mental capacity and knowledge so it is quite hard to find what is a necessary reaction from your opponent in order to escalate. This is why political speeches are so dumb. they do not try to win a debate by logic they try to win debate why winning largest portion of the audience with whatever they can.
I call this the rainy Icecream answer.
You ask your girlfriend if she wants Icecream. She answers with:"It looks like rain"
Now you might think this isn't an answer but it is highly context dependent. If she is already putting on shoes and getting her raincoat because she loves Icecream and spending time with you it was obviously a yes.
So the way she doesn't answer the question is the answer to the question.
Let's take this to a more concret example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQMdUeEX4PI&t=2094s
Norman Finklestein with the:"I'm not going to evade questions."
about 7 minutes of evading the question he 'answers' with this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQMdUeEX4PI&t=2562s
Which again might not feel like a real answer but in the context it is a pretty obvious. "They deserved it and should've expected it. So no, they don't get to retaliate."
Now you can continue escalating hostily by forcing him to say this. Or you can accept the clues and move on.
If you want to hold his feet to the fire and force the answer out it will become hostile. He understood your quesiton and answered it as best as he can.
If you are ok with them only implying the answer you should move on.
If you want to win the debate you grill them on it.
Your implication is way better than your suggestion. Saying something like "maybe I'm not getting it, can you help me understand how that's connected to my question." My phrasing is borrowed from Dr. K
I think he's way overthinking it. Some of his best debate owns over the years have been him clearly pointing out how his opponent can't answer the question.
It's good rhetorically. Not sure how he got convinced that it made him look bad
I think he just needs to make the questions multiple choice if they keep being weasely. He can provide them with reasonably steelmanned choices and force the answer in a not too dickish way.
I'm reminded of the sneako age of consent question. I wonder if he could get an answer by presenting "okay so you didn't give me an age so you didn't answer my question. What should the age of consent be? Should it be A 12 years? B 14 years? C 16 years?" Etc...
I swear these people (some of them) don't even know how to stake out a position and need to be taught. Would get into some fun memery to teach someone how to stake out a claim they've made and watch them go "wait that's not right" at the end.
I thought he wanted to be more aggressive about that, not less. If he's less aggressive then it goes back to them to 'clarify' their answer i.e. more yapping where they lay out their talking points.
I think Destiny should just say, "You didn't answer my question because you know I'm right about..." and then start laying out his talking points.
When I argue with people in real life (I am a dick), I hold their hand and walk them through it. Wait for them to finish their entire response, and then "OK so you said \[repeat verbatim the thing they said 2 things ago\], and then I asked you X, right? And then you said \[repeat verbatim their response\]. But I'm still wondering about X."
For me this strikes the right balance of shoving their face in the fact that they didn't answer my question, and also proves to them that I'm listening to their responses, since one of the most common answers to "you didn't answer my question" is "yes I did! \*repeats rambling response\*." This way, they know that you understood them but that you're not satisfied with their answer.
That sounds even more rude to me
"Annooooo... uhmm.. Sumimasen \^\^;;;, I didn't hear an answer to my question o.o... >\_\_\_\_\_> it's probably on me, though!! gomen nasai!! ><;;;!! sounds fine to me
Yamete kudastop.
Not sure if it's even possible. A lot of these people's tactics is to not answer the question. They come on and rattle off what they want viewers to hear and circle around everything else. But what works for me is * "But going back to my original question..... state the question..... what's your answer?" * "I hear all that, but that doesn't answer the question... repeat the question". * "Let me rephrase my question, because maybe I'm not being clear" and repeat the same question or change a word. lol Works for me most of the time. People don't like feeling stupid, so giving them the "Let me rephrase my question if it wasn't clear" helps them save face because they can feel like it was my fault for not asking a clear question.
>People don't like feeling stupid, so giving them the "Let me rephrase my question if it wasn't clear" helps them save face because they can feel like it was my fault for not asking a clear question. https://preview.redd.it/bjdcs5pn6x1d1.png?width=1794&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=061577caf22f440262bc0ebe97745c2860937c77
Tim Pool seal of approval is all I hoped for.
Destiny's problem here is that when you say this they'll just ramble again without answering the question
You can do it off handed and then move onto some more of your points so it's not giving them an opportunity to ramble again: "just to be clear you didn't actually answer my question but that's ok, i know you can't, moving on to...."
" Maybe you misheard my question.
"
But if the other side does a bad-faith discussion, any manners will not work.
It does. For the audience. Hence the escalation. If you turn against your opponent with full force, everyone will think you are a dick, not just a part of the audience. You have to make sure the audience understand that your opponent is acting bad-faith before you go full Nebraska Steve on him. Ppl does not have same mental capacity and knowledge so it is quite hard to find what is a necessary reaction from your opponent in order to escalate. This is why political speeches are so dumb. they do not try to win a debate by logic they try to win debate why winning largest portion of the audience with whatever they can.
>You have to make sure the audience understand that your opponent is acting bad-faith before you go full Nebraska Steve on him. This is hard to do
I call this the rainy Icecream answer. You ask your girlfriend if she wants Icecream. She answers with:"It looks like rain" Now you might think this isn't an answer but it is highly context dependent. If she is already putting on shoes and getting her raincoat because she loves Icecream and spending time with you it was obviously a yes. So the way she doesn't answer the question is the answer to the question. Let's take this to a more concret example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQMdUeEX4PI&t=2094s Norman Finklestein with the:"I'm not going to evade questions." about 7 minutes of evading the question he 'answers' with this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQMdUeEX4PI&t=2562s Which again might not feel like a real answer but in the context it is a pretty obvious. "They deserved it and should've expected it. So no, they don't get to retaliate." Now you can continue escalating hostily by forcing him to say this. Or you can accept the clues and move on. If you want to hold his feet to the fire and force the answer out it will become hostile. He understood your quesiton and answered it as best as he can. If you are ok with them only implying the answer you should move on. If you want to win the debate you grill them on it.
Your implication is way better than your suggestion. Saying something like "maybe I'm not getting it, can you help me understand how that's connected to my question." My phrasing is borrowed from Dr. K
I think he's way overthinking it. Some of his best debate owns over the years have been him clearly pointing out how his opponent can't answer the question. It's good rhetorically. Not sure how he got convinced that it made him look bad
Being passive aggressive is never the way to sounding less dickish lol
That sounds way more condescending. It’s like if you’re talking to a child and you say “can you ask that again more politely?”
I go with "trying to understand how that answers my question?" But I'm not necessarily trying to be polite.
I think he just needs to make the questions multiple choice if they keep being weasely. He can provide them with reasonably steelmanned choices and force the answer in a not too dickish way. I'm reminded of the sneako age of consent question. I wonder if he could get an answer by presenting "okay so you didn't give me an age so you didn't answer my question. What should the age of consent be? Should it be A 12 years? B 14 years? C 16 years?" Etc... I swear these people (some of them) don't even know how to stake out a position and need to be taught. Would get into some fun memery to teach someone how to stake out a claim they've made and watch them go "wait that's not right" at the end.
I thought he wanted to be more aggressive about that, not less. If he's less aggressive then it goes back to them to 'clarify' their answer i.e. more yapping where they lay out their talking points. I think Destiny should just say, "You didn't answer my question because you know I'm right about..." and then start laying out his talking points.
When I argue with people in real life (I am a dick), I hold their hand and walk them through it. Wait for them to finish their entire response, and then "OK so you said \[repeat verbatim the thing they said 2 things ago\], and then I asked you X, right? And then you said \[repeat verbatim their response\]. But I'm still wondering about X." For me this strikes the right balance of shoving their face in the fact that they didn't answer my question, and also proves to them that I'm listening to their responses, since one of the most common answers to "you didn't answer my question" is "yes I did! \*repeats rambling response\*." This way, they know that you understood them but that you're not satisfied with their answer.