– they want you to prove a negative, because they don’t have arguments to support their statement
When arguing both parties end up winning:
– you learn something new and change your conclusions
– you validate your conclusions a bit more with extra information thus making them more true
if the other party provides arguments that you can’t disprove/argue against and you don’t change your conclusions as a result – you’re not having an argument – it’s like seeing someone drop a rock and how it falls on the ground and still insisting it flew away.
[TODO]
Arguing isn’t about defeating your opponent; it’s about exchanging ideas and refining your own through the process of debate. In an argument, both sides gain something:
– when you present your ideas and face counterarguments, you’re exposed to perspectives and information you might not have had or considered. This can prompt you to change your conclusions to something else that is more true
– you validate your conclusions a bit more with extra information thus making them more true
A real argument is dynamic; both parties engage, consider new evidence, and adjust their conclusions accordingly. But what happens when one side presents not refuted evidence, and the other stubbornly sticks their position? Such a scenario isn’t an argument at all – it’s like watching someone drop a rock and observe it fall to the ground, yet still insisting it flew away.