I posted it below already
Counter-argument for this would be that some deeply held ethical convictions might be difficult to argue against because they are based on fundamental values that many consider non-negotiable. These beliefs can be rational, yet difficult to counter without feeling a profound moral dissonance. “Don’t litter” would be a good example that’s really difficult to honestly argue against.
Good point! At this time of the year one doesn't need to go much further north from where I live for the sun to not set all all during the night. It's called the midnight-sun.
The point I'm trying to get at is that if you can't lay out the counter-argument your opponent would make against your view in a way that they would agree with (steelmanning) then you're not debating in good-faith. It doesn't automatically mean you're wrong - it's possible to be right by accident or intuition too, but it does cast doubt on the quality of one's reasoning.
This thread is a good example of that. "I believe the sun will rise tomorrow" and "I need to breathe oxygen" are not good-faith counters to my argument. They're the opposite of that; strawmans. I'm perfectly willing to admit there are edge cases where this way of reasoning falls short (rocks are hard, fire is hot, water is wet ..) but I don't feel like that in any way refutes what is the essence of what I'm saying.
Depends how one defines "winning"
It might win the audience to your side but that doesn't automatically mean you're right. Trump is a great example of this.
That's not exactly what I mean by belief and you know it.
Speaking of sincere counter-arguments..
Please elaborate. The connection between the two claims isn't obvious to me.
Counter-argument for this would be that some deeply held ethical convictions might be difficult to argue against because they are based on fundamental values that many consider non-negotiable. These beliefs can be rational, yet difficult to counter without feeling a profound moral dissonance. "Don't litter" would be a good example that's really difficult to honestly argue against.
By what logic?
I agree. Applies to piracy as well. I still partake in both - I'm just not lying to myself about what I'm doing.
I find the mental gymnastics hilarious that people perform in order to justify doing that so that they can still feel good about themselves. I think it's quite similar to eating meat. I know the animals are suffering and it's hurting the climate and there's no moral justification for buying factory farmed meat but I still do because it's so good.
I perhaps worded the title a little poorly. I'm effectively arguing for steelmanning: if you have a view on a certain topic and thus disagree with the view of someone else, then for the very least you should be capable of repeating back to them their own argument in a way that they agree with. This way you're demonstrating that you actually understood what they said rather than disagreeing with the strawman version of their argument. If one is uncapable of presenting in an honest way any such opposing views to that of their own then there's a good likelihood that they actually haven't considered alternative views but instead landed on it for mostly emotional and intuitive reasons.
This mostly applies to topics of which there is a significant amount of disagreement about as well as fringe views going against the mainstream. Such consideration is less important when talking about facts that there's a broad consensus on.
An example would be a person opposing a political movement but when asked to list some of the stated goals of said movement they then fail to do so. How can one oppose something they don't even understand?