MUST win arguments/debates

Post Reply New Topic

I sometimes get what I call The Red Haze, where somebody will say or do something, and I will suddenly be compelled, by Righteous Indignation more than anything, to criticise said person until they "see the error of thier ways". Usually, After about a day, I begin thinking "why the hell did I do that?". Reason? The Red Haze has struck again. Unfortunately, I think this part and parcel of having an Affective Disorder.

I used to be very much this way. so was my dad, who I'm sure had AS as well. he sometimes argued just for the sake of the debate, we argued constantly but I never had the "semantics" problem when arguing with him. I have it a lot with NTs, they use so many empty, meaningless words and statements as arguments, it annoys me like nothing else in this world

Yep, I get this.

I try to avoid this but I sometimes stumble into an argument on the basis of something trivial.

I seem to get worked up not because I'm "right" as such, rather I feel the other person hasn't understood the point at which we disagree. People feel that they are being attacked when I question their statements such as "it just is" and "that's just how I feel", because I seem to assert that this needs further qualification on the basis of something more substantial. I don't mean to upset people but somehow I always do and I don't quite understand why because most of the time I don't disagree with their conclusions. Rather I assert that this conclusion (right or wrong) has not been formed in a logical manner.

Note: People seem to also feel insulted by being associated with being "illogical", rather than looking it as a description of their statements characteristic.

No, but I have to be factual. What people do with that is up to them. I'm not a psychiatrist.

When I was a kid, yes.

Now, I don't care, especially not when addressing an anonymous internet keyboard monkey. These days, I just ignore people I find stupid or boring.

There is no such thing as "winning" a debate. Even if you think you "won" and have factual material on your side, the ignoramus will still walk away thinking it is right and you are wrong. 99 percent of the time debate is an exercise in futility. It's main purpose is emotional venting, not changing people's minds. Also, the more contentious the topic becomes, the more futile debate becomes.

This, too.

I have noticed this in none spectrum people too.

I don't feel the need to win. I just say my thing and be done with it. if I don't feel like arguing, I leave it. But I have always hated getting into arguments over facts and the other person is wrong but that is so hard to stay out of. But opinions I will not keep arguing about no matter how strong they are. I find it pointless to argue when someone will not change their mind and agree. But sometimes I get sucked into it when I think the other person isn't getting it. But I do have to draw the line somewhere and call it quits because do I want to waste my time arguing with an idiot? I just say my thing and be done with it. Besides they could just be trolling me to give me a hard time. I think some people play dumb just to keep you going so they are probably doing it to piss me off. I do think there is such thing as real life trolling, this. So why waste my time arguing getting all upset?


I did have one experience in a Facebook group where a guy loved to argue but he was wrong about everything. Plus at times I had wondered if he was just a troll because he argued just for the sake of an argument it seemed like and things he said sounded untrue. Like the time he mentioned none of his kids never made noise by shrieking just to hear their own voice, a stage babies go through. I found that so hard to believe. Were they all deaf or something so they passed that stage and didn't go through it? I don't think a deaf baby would do that normal stage because they can't hear so they wouldn't be able to hear their own voice and shriek to hear it. Also the fact he acted like he was a perfect parent and makes no mistakes. Then he was finally banned. He even threw out insults and name calling when people disagree with him and then he stopped the insults and name calling and started arguing the mature way. But when he got banned, I felt I regret not arguing with him because I then wished I did wasted my time arguing with him just for the fun of it but I was too lazy to do it.

And then I have seen aspies here who have said they don't like to argue and are no good at it so they don't do it so that means they wouldn't argue at all even if someone is wrong about something.

Consider political debates. When two candidates debate, they are not trying to change each other's minds. That would indeed be futile and has never happened in the history of political debate. However, as everybody knows, the purpose of political debates is not to change the mind of the opposing candidate but rather to influence the voters who have not yet made up their minds who to vote for. In these cases, there is a very clear winner; it's whoever gets the most undecided people to decide to vote for them.

I think debates on the internet and in real life (if there are more people observing the debate than just the two debaters) serve the same purpose. It can just be easy to lose sight of that when you can't see the "undecided" audience. You will never change the mind of the person with whom you are debating. That is not the purpose. The purpose is to influence people who have not yet picked a stand on the issue you are debating. They are completely invisible on the internet soi it's easy to lose sight of them. They are more visible in real life. If you are debating somebody about an issue and a bunch of people are listening in (in real life) then you have won if they say "hmm, Marshall made a good point" and come around to your point of view. If more people say that about the other guy, you have lost.


I was never on a debate team in college but I did take a class and that's where I got this principle pounded into me.

Hahaha- this is one of the downsides of having an AS/AS romantic relationship. Where an NT would usually sigh and give up, my boyfriend and I both feel that we have to get the last word in.

I see your point but I still don't buy into the notion that there can be an objective "winner". I wouldn't consider a politician who uses misleading or outright deceitful tactics and/or preys on the audiences ignorance / simple-mindedness a "winner". They may convince more formerly undecided people to agree with their views, but that doesn't make their argument sound or logical. Yet they can still "win" the propaganda war, even when they are dead wrong on the ALL the issues, possibly even to the point of being a complete and total idiot. In that case they have "won" the debate only in some twisted Machiavellian sense by appealing to the deeply flawed and irrational nature of their audience.

So in the end I still don't see the point of "winning". Why should I pride myself in "winning" a debate if all I am doing is manipulating an unintelligent audience? In that case I'd take more pride in having a sound argument the represents the values I actually believe in, yet I still "lose" to the masses.

I definitely have had this problem. I think it may be a communication error more than anything else. I have definite opinions about things I've read or documentaries I've watched based on fairly objective scientific opinion. Politics has really introduced and framed topics of science like evolution and climate change in terms of belief. From a scientific standpoint belief is irrelevant; so there seems to be a disconnect in opinion being shaped by objective, measurable, and disprovable data and ideas vs. the wouldn't it be pretty to think so school of thought. I don't get into these arguments anymore because I'm speaking one language and the other person is speaking another. For some reason people have cognitive discomfort thinking about certain topics and want to believe things because it makes them feel better. I don't understand this point of view (I suspect this is a form of narcissism) and I'm the worst diplomat ever so I just don't say anything that could lead to an argument. In less controversial areas I open with I read this book and the author said this or I watched this show that argued that citing my sources. This helps cue the other person to cite their sources if they disagree which is good because I might not have experienced this other information. Sometimes people will just say I don't believe that and expect that to be a reasonable form of proof. I try not to say anything at that point because I find the idea I should take your feelings at the same level of value as someone's proof to be infuriating. It just frustrates me in a way I can't really explain.

Honestly, I no longer bother arguing with most people because I don't respect them enough to point out that they're wrong. If I think someone's a moron I don't care enough about what they say to engage them. When someone says something I know to be factually incorrect, it's enough for me to know I'm right and I don't care if I'm the only person who knows it.

This. Still I want to point out my truth too often.

Sure, I just HAVE to get the last word