Comments by "Mark Pawelek" (@mark4asp) on "How to Win Any Debate (Without Being an A**hole)" video.

For me, a strong argument, is one which rests on foundations, or first principles of communication. Deal with the core issue. This forces me to deal with the opponents argument. I must convince my oppoents they are wrong by understanding them, steel-manning them, and then explaining to them why their argument is wrong. Ideally I should reframe their argument in terms which undercut it. I will probably have to understand my opponents motivations as well. So that I can explain to them how and why their original arguments undercut their inner, or core, objectives.
1
"What makes a man a Sophist is not his faculty but his moral purpose" <- Clearly wrong. What makes one a Sophist today is whether one allies with intrinsic or with instrumental reason. Those driven by instrumental reason have no great respect for objective truth. Those driven by intrinsic reason aim for objective truth.
1
Why Learn Rhetoric? <- So that we can defend ourselves when it's used against us. For example by implying there are reasonable and unreasonable debates; and that unreasonable debates end in lies, fraud, and bad policy.
1
You diagnosed a symptom but aren't addressing it by giving us a counter debate style. For example, should we refuse to debate or talk with those who degrade and mock opponents? Because that plays into their hands. Such people are forever trying to censor and cancel their critics. Because they often believe that they can push their ideas by stopping public expression of all ideas contrary to theirs.
1