The “Defend Something You Are Against” Challenge

Benefits of anti-Semitism:
1. There’s always someone to blame for your problems
2. You can get rich from looting Jews
3. The liberals will love you for being anti-Israel
4. BDS is fun!

Good things about liberals:
1. They care about others (ostensibly)
2. They feel a sense of responsibility to society
3. They are sensitive to injustice (perceived or real)

Good things about people who aren’t me
1. Ummmmmm….

Good things about having venomous snakes loose in your house:
1. Your house will be free of rats.
2. You won’t be bothered by neighbors dropping in unexpectedly.
3. You’ll be able to say the Modeh Ani in the morning with real sincerity.

What a fantastic idea.

In real life, I always found it disturbing at the ease I had to fight both sides of the debate. I could persuade many people the side of the argument I felt was woefully wrong, and proceed afterwards to refute my own arguments.

For some reason, I can’t do this online. Definitely not in this thread; it’s too obvious. Maybe I’ll try do this on another thread, where nobody will notice. I wonder how successful I’ll be?

Good things about kids hating vegetables:
1. Good way to make a book just cliche enough.
2. Parents get to eat the vegetables their kids won’t touch.
3. No vegetable overdoses.

I’m sorry to say this, or to do anything to halt your fun, but this thread simply doesn’t work on any level.

It’s one thing to argue about something one cares about. You have a moral standpoint, a platform from which to pontificate. Arguing is something that only makes sense when you actually believe in what it is you are saying. Simply endeavoring to be contrary is an insult to the entire essence of reasonable discussion.

Furthermore, even were that not the case, it is virtually impossible to be truly convincing when simply pretending to believe as you do. It’s one thing to defend a position that matters to you. Your brain is fully employed in trying to find the gaps in the oppositions defenses and the inherent truth and logic in your own. But when your only aim is to argue against yourself, you’re simply not going to do a good job, no matter how hard you try. The lack of emotional investment means that your bound to be destroyed in a reasonable discussion by anybody that actually believes in what they’re saying, even an intellectual inferior.

Also, as an intellectual exercise it’s severely flawed, as what most of you are doing is merely trying to find the humourous upside to a bad situation, such as snakes in your house. That’s not making a proper case for an argument, that’s simply making jokey comments about the potential upsides of a particular situation. But finding the silver lining, whilst worthwhile and undoubtedly fun, is not the same as arguing that the cloud itself doesn’t exist, or isn’t affecting you. Pointing out how the upsides of, for example, having snakes in your house, outweigh the obvious negatives, would be making an argument. Making funny comments about stupid positives is not. As a point of discussion, indeed, as a thread, it is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Sorry, it had to be said. This thread is not only unworkable and pointless, but people aren’t even fulfilling the supposed premise. I appreciate the effort involved, but let’s not fool ourselves this is anything other than a ridiculous charade.

@misteryudi – I like your metaphor about dusty attics

Good things about not using a shadchan:
1. No pressure
2. You have to be a mentch and say things *gasp* face to face sometimes
3. You can be just like Yaakov Avinu
4. You will learn not to do things just because society approves of them

Yekke2 – is that a good idea? I mean if you really think that something is against the Torah, are you allowed to try to pretend you think it’s true and to try to provide convincing arguments for it?

It happens to be that both in real life and online, whenever people are arguing one side too strongly, I usually do present the other side (in either direction), but that is because/when I think there is some truth to both sides, not because I was deliberately saying something that I thought wasn’t true.

misteryudi – I agree with you that if people never thought things through clearly and never tried to see both sides, that it’s a good idea to do so. But what about those people who have thought through the issues clearly, have spoken to people on both sides of the fence, and perhaps even originally thought the other way before they researched the matter enough and thought it through enough and came to the conclusion that this is the correct point of view and perhaps the only point of view according to the Torah? Is it really such a good idea in that case to try to present
the other side of view?

Maybe it’s even assur to do so. There is a concept in Torah hashkafa of staying away from negative influences. The only way it is mutar to read things that are not according to Torah hashkafa is if you are trying not to be influenced by it – not if you are.

At the same time, I do agree that when presented with a different point of view that is not clearly against the Torah, one should think about it and not be closed to the possibility that the other person is right or partially right and you may be wrong or partially wrong, but that does not seem to be what you are saying.

Of course, if you are talking about issues that are not Torah related, it is different, but I think most of the topics raised in the CR are (except for the American politics ones).

I’m just raising the possible problems with doing this, although I suppose it depends how it’s done.

I have my issues with Zionism and the Zionist movement. (I’m not against them, but we could get along better.) Benefits of this movement, however, include:
* There are Jewish people living in the part of the world Biblically known as Eretz Yisroel.
* Thanks to the Zionists, there is a Jewish state where Jews can theoretically move to if the rest of the world does, indeed, become a dangerous place for us.
* Kosher chewing gum from big-name brands, like Orbit and Bazooka.

I was not a supporter of Billary Clinton during the 2016 election. Benefits of her running and getting as far as she did include:
* Proof that women can run for president and get as far as being selected as a mainstream party’s candidate.
* Inspiration for more qualified and honest women to run for president in the future.
* …?

So it seems that before I managed to post my clarification, NetiquamErro and LU correctly (and may I say it, more eloquently) pointed out the flaws with “arguing the other side”. Although I agree (see above), I think that NE is incorrect.

Furthermore, even were that not the case, it is virtually impossible to be truly convincing when simply pretending to believe as you do. It’s one thing to defend a position that matters to you. Your brain is fully employed in trying to find the gaps in the oppositions defenses and the inherent truth and logic in your own. But when your only aim is to argue against yourself, you’re simply not going to do a good job, no matter how hard you try. The lack of emotional investment means that your bound to be destroyed in a reasonable discussion by anybody that actually believes in what they’re saying, even an intellectual inferior.

Although from a moral standpoint you were correct, I must disagree with this point of yours. I can tell you with confidence that I have done the very thing you have proclaimed impossible, and have successfully persuaded opponents against arguments they were very emotionally attached to, although I fully supported their position the whole way along. In fact, I was successful enough that when I told them I was actually “on their team”, I had to re-argue their position while they took up my points, and I had to refute them one by one. And I wasn’t arguing with an idiot either.

What you say about emotional investment – if you enjoy the challenge enough, you can be emotionally invested in the argument you don’t believe, albeit a superficial attachment.

One place where I used this tactic (perhaps where i developed this tactic) constructively and not just for entertainment is in the Beis Hamedrash. When discussing a sugya, people often have preconceived notions and unjustified assumptions (generally called הנחות) or sometimes have come out with a “mehalech”, and although they may be correct in their assumptions/mehalech, they may have the wrong reasons to prove it. There is a big toieles to play the “devils advocate”, להגדיל תורה ולהאדירה. In this case, ביקוש האמת obligates you to try get out of any unnecessary assumptions which you may have picked up along the route without legitimate reason. When a chavrusa of mine will say something, I will automatically (subconciously) take on the opposite position, not in a offensive fashion but in a defensive fashion. This is not being מגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה, this is לימוד התורה.

So we got a couple responses, and the critical thinking meter has been pushed up just a tick or two. But let’s get real. Are we just to afraid to approach topics that may force us to see things in a way we are uncomfortable with? Are we too strong in our biases, too buried in our dusty attics, that we are scared to open up new avenues?

Arguments for assuming that everyone in the CR who disagrees with me lacks critical thinking skills and has a dusty brain:

1. I am so smart and my position so correct, that anyone who disagrees with me is obviously closed-minded and dusty brained.

2. My failure to convince anyone else of my position is totally because they are closed minded and dusty brained, and it certainly isn’t because of my own persuasive abilities or flaws in my positions that need to be addressed.

3. I can easily see the flaws in other people’s positions, so the fact that they hold those positions is because they are closed minded and dusty brained, certainly not because they have valid reasons that I may not understand fully because I never asked.

4. I can throw out some meager points in favor of the opposing view. Because I never see anyone else do this, they must all be closed minded and dusty brained.

Children are born ready to think. School changes that.

Oh yekke, you must be joking. If you and NE don’t want to participate then feel free to click elsewhere. If overdramatizing could be applied here I would certainly say it applies here.

Sheesh

#KTCRIM

Yet, concerning most hashkafic/halachic issues, there actually ARE multiple legitimate ways of dealing with them.

(A) The multiple ways are only “legitimate” in as far as Limmud HaToirah is concerned. As far as practical Halachah is concerned, it is either Assur or Muttar. You can’t have both.

(B) You are right when it comes to legitimate mehalchim, but not when some of those mehalchim is not legitimate. And you must proceed with a lot of caution when differentiating between them.

MisterYudi – while it’s true that when it comes to hashkafa, sometimes there is more than one side to things, that would be part of my opinion. I would stress the side that is necessary depending on what is relevant to the specific argument taking place.

For example, I might believe that there are both good things and bad things about the State of Israel. If someone was posting that there is nothing bad about it, I would say that there is. But if someone said that there was nothing good about it, I might say that there is.

It is true that that there are people/posters who are very set in their ideology and have never tried to consider anything else and never tried to see the other side. For example, there are some who are sure that Zionism is completely good and anything the anti-Zionists say is false, and they don’t try to consider their point of view. And the opposite as well. There are people who think a harsh tactic is necessary when dealing with tznius issues or kids-at-risk and haven’t tried considering the opposite, and vice versa.

Those posters/people should certainly try to consider the other side (since as you point out, when it comes to many of these issues, there is more than one side). The problem is that your point can be misunderstood or misused if used by the wrong people. And the problem is that it is precisely those people who will be open-minded enough to follow your suggestion.

It is precisely those people who do consider both sides before reaching their conclusions who will listen to your advice and try to argue for a position that they KNOW is wrong since they are open-minded enough to have thought through the issue and to have consulted with Daas Torah and/or researched the matter BEFORE they reached their conclusion. That is actually why I directed my post to Yekke (and hadn’t said anything until then even though I had some doubts about this) – because I feel that he is someone who does seem to fall into this last category.

So your idea would be a good idea if taken by those who haven’t yet considered the other side. But I’m just wondering how likely that is to happen. And meanwhile, it is precisely those people who shouldn’t be doing it are doing it.

And while you are right that people should learn to overcome biases, I’m not sure this is the way to do it.

Mod-29:

Firstly, hoping you are well, nice to be back. Secondly… Um, I’m a little bit confused why you told me off before… have I missed something?

NE, I didn’t tell you off, I was responding to – “Sorry, it had to be said. This thread is not only unworkable and pointless, but people aren’t even fulfilling the supposed premise. I appreciate the effort involved, but let’s not fool ourselves this is anything other than a ridiculous charade.”

In my humble opinion, this challenge might work better if the OP would post a specific “thing you are against” subject as a new topic.

Avram & Yekke +1!

Huh?