Facts vs Emotion

[Sephiroth Crescent]

I've noticed a trend in these forums. Some people make their argument based on facts, and others based on emotions.

For example, heres how a factual person, and a emotional person would react to different scenarios. Note not all people who are more factual/emotional will react this way, so please dont even mention that .

Scenario 1: There was a story a while ago in the U.S about two lesbians being kicked off a bus for making out.

Factual: "Those two lesbians were told repeadily to stop by the bus driver, not to mention theres a sign that says "No smoking' No public displays of affection, etc", the bus driver was justified, and emotional people throw this story out of proportion".

Emotional: "What!? Thats not fair at all, two people of the same sex who love eachother in this day and age can't do anything without being discriminated against! People who are factual are heartless, and insensitive.

The emotional person ignored that the two girls ignored the bus driver, and broke the rules of the bus, while the factual person dissmiss it as "if it was a man and a woman the emotional people wouldn't react the same".

Scenario 2: Pretend your a Knight, and your guarding the kings castle, while on your night patrol, you find a man whos stolen some potatoes from a nearby vendor whos asleep, he tells you its to feed his starving family.

Factual: "That man is just a theif, stealing is wrong"

Emotional: "That poor man, he just wants to feed his poor starving family!"

Again the factual person ignores the mans intentions to feed his family, while the emotional person ignores the fact that the man stole from another man probably trying to feed his family also to feed his own which in a way is selfish, but understandable. Note I didnt mention how much he stole, for all we know he could be a lier, and a theif and ultimately could be playing you for a fool. If i were the guard, I'd give him enough to feed his family, if he took an exagerrated amount its quite suspicious.

So what I want you to do, is state whether you debate with facts or emotion, and reply to the 2 scenarios, if you use both, pick whichever you use more. For scenario 2 be specific, would you let the man go without question, confiscate the potatoes and tell him a life of crime is wrong, and let him go, or report him to your liege for being a theif.


In the end if you argue with...

Facts: You make your arguments on facts, but come off as insensitive to people who make arguments more on emotion.

Emotional: You make your arguments on emeotions, as such you come off as somebody opinionated, who doesn't neccesarily have their facts straight.

Thanks! If you read how i worded everything you'll know what my answers are .

Note: I'm not saying factual people are cold ruthless and insensitive, or that emotional people are stupid, and highly opionated. So don't even go there =P

- Kuja

 

[Doaj]

Well, I suppose it depends on my mood...greatly. Also, there are other factors I'd want to know about. If I were the guard, "Am I on my regular route?" "Have I seen this man committing crimes before?" etc. Not to mention, I'd want to know if the man was armed. I'd also escort the man back to his home, first of all to know where he lives should I find he is lying, and secondly to cover for him should he run into any other guards. If I were lied to, after giving him a chance and believing him, I'd probably imprison him.
I suppose that I'd be an emotional person, but I'd be weary nonetheless. I think the difference between that situation, though, and the debates that are common throughout forums, the primary debates aren't so involved. We don't get the full story, we hardly get half the pieces of the story usually, and then we argue and bullshit over something that we don't know anything about. For example, the common debate over God's existence- none of us really know, but we try to use emotions and facts to prove our own opinion right. And when I say, none of us really know, I'm not saying those who truly believe he exists are mystified, but that there's no way for them to prove it to those who disagree (and vise versa also applies). Being an emotional person, there's a song line that fits in with that I like, by Live. "I don't need no one to tell about Heaven, I look at my daughter and I believe. I don't need proof when it comes to God and truth, I can see the sunset."

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

Well, I suppose it depends on my mood...greatly. Also, there are other factors I'd want to know about. If I were the guard, "Am I on my regular route?" "Have I seen this man committing crimes before?" etc. Not to mention, I'd want to know if the man was armed. I'd also escort the man back to his home, first of all to know where he lives should I find he is lying, and secondly to cover for him should he run into any other guards. If I were lied to, after giving him a chance and believing him, I'd probably imprison him.
I suppose that I'd be an emotional person, but I'd be weary nonetheless. I think the difference between that situation, though, and the debates that are common throughout forums, the primary debates aren't so involved. We don't get the full story, we hardly get half the pieces of the story usually, and then we argue and bullshit over something that we don't know anything about. For example, the common debate over God's existence- none of us really know, but we try to use emotions and facts to prove our own opinion right. And when I say, none of us really know, I'm not saying those who truly believe he exists are mystified, but that there's no way for them to prove it to those who disagree (and vise versa also applies). Being an emotional person, there's a song line that fits in with that I like, by Live. "I don't need no one to tell about Heaven, I look at my daughter and I believe. I don't need proof when it comes to God and truth, I can see the sunset."

You captured the points very well, and I think your correct.

However, as for the second scenario, pretend there are no "what ifs" as they're annoying, and you can't spend your life wondering "what if", go with what I said. Other than that, great post.

- Kuja

 

[Lirael]

I actually usually try to make my post lie somewhere in between, while adding more then one angle at the same time. I don't always add emotion, but I rarely fail to see two sides to the story... although there are probably examples of where I have. I may have my own opinion, but I still like to be balanced in a response 'cause I tend to appreciate where others are coming from. For example, with the lesbian couple, my respnse would, in a short summary, be:

"While it probably did seem as though the bus driver was discriminating against the lesbian couple, I doubt he meant it in that way. He probably shouldn't have thrown them off the bus - that's going a bit far - but people generally don't appreciate public displays of affection, even from a "normal" couple either; it's a bit taboo really."

And, had I read what was said by the factual poster, I would have added:

"The fact there was a sign specifically asking people generally to avoid giving public displays shows this; unless the poster left it out, the sign did not specifically target homosexual couples. While I still think the bus driver was a bit harsh, the couple should have been a bit more considerate. :/ If they decided to throw smokers off the bus for smoking, but not couples off for making out when the sign asked them not to, surely that would be more discriminatory."

Aaanyway, the point I'm trying to make is: it's possible to have a bit of both in one's post, and there are a few people who do that; although, in general, I do agree with what you have said. It's probably 'cause some of them listen to their heart more than their head, while others listen to their head more than their heart. Also, those who appear more emotional may not all read the other posts, and so may not know the facts. They just respond to what the first poster said, and have no idea of the underlying circumstances. In that case, it's no wonder they fail to see the other side of the story. And those who just lay down the facts probably feel they'd just be repeating what others have said and so feel they wouldn't really be making a real contribution.

 

[der Astronom]

I argue from fact as much as I can. However, another thing to note is that it is a fact that people have emotions--and one reason why alternate solutions need to be considered. So from scenario 2, for example, instead of simply arresting the guy for stealing potatoes, give him a job so that he can provide for his family, and he won't steal again--or make him cook the potatoes for the king, and have some for himself as well. I do not like to argue from emotions because it is irrational and possibly ignorant. It also doesn't solve anything and also makes you biased. It would be very difficult to find alternate solutions if you argue from emotions; the possibility is not even considered by people under the control of emotions.

In the first scenario, I agree with the factual perspective. The fact that the two people who got thrown off of the bus were lesbians is a red herring, and has nothing to do with discrimination--if they were a heterosexual couple and were thrown off, then it is of no consequence.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

I argue from fact as much as I can. However, another thing to note is that it is a fact that people have emotions--and one reason why alternate solutions need to be considered. So from scenario 2, for example, instead of simply arresting the guy for stealing potatoes, give him a job so that he can provide for his family, and he won't steal again--or make him cook the potatoes for the king, and have some for himself as well. I do not like to argue from emotions because it is irrational and possibly ignorant. It also doesn't solve anything and also makes you biased. It would be very difficult to find alternate solutions if you argue from emotions; the possibility is not even considered by people under the control of emotions.

In the first scenario, I agree with the factual perspective. The fact that the two people who got thrown off of the bus were lesbians is a red herring, and has nothing to do with discrimination--if they were a heterosexual couple and were thrown off, then it is of no consequence.

Well said, I agree 100%, I hope more people here think the same way.

- Kuja

 

[Nilladar]

I believe it takes both of these to make an arguement. No one will start a debate or whatever unless they felt some emotion about it, but to make a good argument or make make a good debate one needs to know the facts. I would say i wish i was somewhere within this bracket but i will become emotional about something and sometimes i will stick to the factual part of a debate.

 

[TheDoctor]

Fact should always be the driving force behind a debate. Always. Emotions have no place because they are subjective and differ from person to person making it very difficult to settle an argument.

Facts are always objective. They've been established and can't be argued against with emotion. Facts can only be argued with with other facts. Best way to debate.

 

[Deleted member 176]

xD Interesting topic, if just to read the insanely biased "scenario's" xD

if you're going to do this, try and offer a genuine moral quandry, it makes the results much more interesting. As it is, the position of the questioner and his methods are more amusing than the answers.

 

[Davey Gaga]

+1. ^

I'm not sure I like the terms "factual" and "emotional". They have connotations of two very different extremes where one is ignorant to the other and vice versa. The "factual" might not be as insensitive as you're suggesting - it might just be the more practical standpoint in a certain situation. As such, my answer to this question is that I take a more practical stance in a debate, as opposed to either factual or emotional. I suppose it's some form of middle ground.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

+1. ^

I'm not sure I like the terms "factual" and "emotional". They have connotations of two very different extremes where one is ignorant to the other and vice versa. The "factual" might not be as insensitive as you're suggesting - it might just be the more practical standpoint in a certain situation. As such, my answer to this question is that I take a more practical stance in a debate, as opposed to either factual or emotional. I suppose it's some form of middle ground.

I said very clearly that all factual/emotional people wouldn't neccesarily react this way, and not to even mention that. I know factual people aren't insensitive, but they often come across that way to somebody who is more emotional.

Thank you for your input,

xD Interesting topic, if just to read the insanely biased "scenario's" xD

if you're going to do this, try and offer a genuine moral quandry, it makes the results much more interesting. As it is, the position of the questioner and his methods are more amusing than the answers.

Once again, you have left me speechless Decado XD.


- Kuja