The link below is a man explaining why Plato hated debates. Largely audiences confuse someone with better debate tactics and a better voice as speaking the truth. Person arguing for A won, thus A must be true.
Plato believed truth was a long term collaborative process.
Looking at how the world has developed, Plato appears to have been correct.
I suspect this happens far more often than we admit. OJ's lawyers were more polished meant that OJ was not guilty. But was that really the "truth?" Be it politics, law, or even commercials, how often do we equate being more polished as the truth?
The link below is a man explaining why Plato hated debates. Largely audiences confuse someone with better debate tactics and a better voice as speaking the truth. Person arguing for A won, thus A must be true.
Plato believed truth was a long term collaborative process.
Looking at how the world has developed, Plato appears to have been correct.
I suspect this happens far more often than we admit. OJ's lawyers were more polished meant that OJ was not guilty. But was that really the "truth?" Be it politics, law, or even commercials, how often do we equate being more polished as the truth?
eristic. not the path if seeking the truth. that's what i studied in college. it took 30 years to come up. thank you. while twenty jdb and dr hoops studied things that were useful to them on day one
The link below is a man explaining why Plato hated debates. Largely audiences confuse someone with better debate tactics and a better voice as speaking the truth. Person arguing for A won, thus A must be true.
Plato believed truth was a long term collaborative process.
Looking at how the world has developed, Plato appears to have been correct.
I suspect this happens far more often than we admit. OJ's lawyers were more polished meant that OJ was not guilty. But was that really the "truth?" Be it politics, law, or even commercials, how often do we equate being more polished as the truth?
The link isn't working for me:
This Facebook post is no longer available. It may have been removed or the privacy settings of the post may have changed.
But Plato's thoughts make sense and seem logical. Some of the brightest minds aren't necessarily good leaders or speakers. That always affects public trust and views.
The link below is a man explaining why Plato hated debates. Largely audiences confuse someone with better debate tactics and a better voice as speaking the truth. Person arguing for A won, thus A must be true.
Plato believed truth was a long term collaborative process.
Looking at how the world has developed, Plato appears to have been correct.
I suspect this happens far more often than we admit. OJ's lawyers were more polished meant that OJ was not guilty. But was that really the "truth?" Be it politics, law, or even commercials, how often do we equate being more polished as the truth?
Interesting. First of all, Plato’s ideas about “Truth” are themselves debatable. There are many factors that make up an effective debater/ advocate. Voice quality is among those. We are told Abraham Lincoln’s voice quality was not very good, yet we was a very good debater/ advocate.
@co-hoosier distilled to the basics debate and finding truth are different things. Debate is like a game. Tactics tricks with the goal of winning. Truth seeking is different. We see the former play out with the incessant lying during the presidential debates.
The link below is a man explaining why Plato hated debates. Largely audiences confuse someone with better debate tactics and a better voice as speaking the truth. Person arguing for A won, thus A must be true.
Plato believed truth was a long term collaborative process.
Looking at how the world has developed, Plato appears to have been correct.
I suspect this happens far more often than we admit. OJ's lawyers were more polished meant that OJ was not guilty. But was that really the "truth?" Be it politics, law, or even commercials, how often do we equate being more polished as the truth?
But what were his faults? Was he a racist? Didn’t Plato defend slavery? What ethnicity were his slaves? Don’t we have to consider them to qualify his opinion & understand the conditions of the time?😉
The link below is a man explaining why Plato hated debates. Largely audiences confuse someone with better debate tactics and a better voice as speaking the truth. Person arguing for A won, thus A must be true.
Plato believed truth was a long term collaborative process.
Looking at how the world has developed, Plato appears to have been correct.
I suspect this happens far more often than we admit. OJ's lawyers were more polished meant that OJ was not guilty. But was that really the "truth?" Be it politics, law, or even commercials, how often do we equate being more polished as the truth?
But what were his faults? Was he a racist? Didn’t Plato defend slavery? What ethnicity were his slaves? Don’t we have to consider them to qualify his opinion & understand the conditions of the time?😉
The link below is a man explaining why Plato hated debates. Largely audiences confuse someone with better debate tactics and a better voice as speaking the truth. Person arguing for A won, thus A must be true.
Plato believed truth was a long term collaborative process.
Looking at how the world has developed, Plato appears to have been correct.
I suspect this happens far more often than we admit. OJ's lawyers were more polished meant that OJ was not guilty. But was that really the "truth?" Be it politics, law, or even commercials, how often do we equate being more polished as the truth?
But what were his faults? Was he a racist? Didn’t Plato defend slavery? What ethnicity were his slaves? Don’t we have to consider them to qualify his opinion & understand the conditions of the time?😉
I disagree. Bait usually has to be clever to work.
The link below is a man explaining why Plato hated debates. Largely audiences confuse someone with better debate tactics and a better voice as speaking the truth. Person arguing for A won, thus A must be true.
Plato believed truth was a long term collaborative process.
Looking at how the world has developed, Plato appears to have been correct.
I suspect this happens far more often than we admit. OJ's lawyers were more polished meant that OJ was not guilty. But was that really the "truth?" Be it politics, law, or even commercials, how often do we equate being more polished as the truth?
But what were his faults? Was he a racist? Didn’t Plato defend slavery? What ethnicity were his slaves? Don’t we have to consider them to qualify his opinion & understand the conditions of the time?😉
I disagree. Bait usually has to be clever to work.
Yet here you are.😆. We had you second most likely to need to jump in….
The link below is a man explaining why Plato hated debates. Largely audiences confuse someone with better debate tactics and a better voice as speaking the truth. Person arguing for A won, thus A must be true.
Plato believed truth was a long term collaborative process.
Looking at how the world has developed, Plato appears to have been correct.
I suspect this happens far more often than we admit. OJ's lawyers were more polished meant that OJ was not guilty. But was that really the "truth?" Be it politics, law, or even commercials, how often do we equate being more polished as the truth?
But what were his faults? Was he a racist? Didn’t Plato defend slavery? What ethnicity were his slaves? Don’t we have to consider them to qualify his opinion & understand the conditions of the time?😉
