StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Is agreeing to disagree the same as conceding. For me conceding means pulling out of the argument, which is the same as agreeing to disagree.

Does anyone here have an opinion or some sort of knowledge on this matter?

Gandalf wrote:Is agreeing to disagree the same as conceding. For me conceding means pulling out of the argument, which is the same as agreeing to disagree.

Does anyone here have an opinion or some sort of knowledge on this matter?

Well, once instance comes to mind of me quote "conceding" an arguement. However, I really was just dropping the issue. I wasn't convinced by the other side, but decided further debate wasn't going anywhere.

Depends on the context. One thing can be an opinion with no right or wrong answer, another can be a basic fact someone disagrees with.

If I concede something, it means I was wrong and you are right. If I mean "we'll agree to disagree" then I'll say that.

Howedar wrote:If I concede something, it means I was wrong and you are right. If I mean "we'll agree to disagree" then I'll say that.

Yeah, I need to be more careful with what I say and how I say it. A single word can put your arguement in the entirely wrong context. Ah well....you live and you learn...in my case I speak hypotheotically.

They're different concepts, but in my opinion, "agree to disagree" is nothing but semantics bullshit.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:They're different concepts, but in my opinion, "agree to disagree" is nothing but semantics bullshit.

I'm afraid I must disagree.

Seriously, just because two people can disagree about something does not automatically imply one of them is right and the other is wrong.

What I'm saying is that it just sounds stupid, and is a boarderline oxymoron.

It's basically a refusal to admit you're wrong, but acknowledging that you're either unable or unwilling to continue the debate.

Uraniun235 wrote:It's basically a refusal to admit you're wrong, but acknowledging that you're either unable or unwilling to continue the debate.

In some cases, that isn't always true since you can argue things that have no empirical value and are based purely on opinion. You still have to argue your point, but there is no fault with it since it is purely what you think, say, which car you like more.

Only an idiot would continue to contest someone's opinion on such a topic.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:What I'm saying is that it just sounds stupid, and is a boarderline oxymoron.

That still does't change the fact that two people can have a disagreement which can't be resolved.

Exactly when you come up against a 1st class shithead it can be less hastle just to agree to disagree. Your in no way back stepping your arguement, your just agreeing to drop it in the face of a WoI that can be seen from space.

I've mostly seen people deciding to "agree to disagree" in situations when they've clearly run of ammunition and want to save face. Though that certainly doesn't mean it isn't used legitimately.

PrinceofLowLight wrote:I've mostly seen people deciding to "agree to disagree" in situations when they've clearly run of ammunition and want to save face. Though that certainly doesn't mean it isn't used legitimately.

Remind me of the time I tried to convince someone that DarkStar was a fucking idiot. He refused to listenm, and then eventually told me to agree to disagree. I had already posted the "Dumshit on ASVS" link, so if he didn't want to look at the evidence, I'd let him rot in ignorance. Not my problem.

Rather than "agreeing to disagree," most of the time I and others have decided to just end the discussion/debate when it clear that it has become pointless.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Rather than "agreeing to disagree," most of the time I and others have decided to just end the discussion/debate when it clear that it has become pointless.

That's essentially what agreeing to disagree is. You've decieded that further arguing is pointless, as neither side is budging, so you just say "fuck it," and let it be.

Then it should be called something less retarded.

"Agreeing to disagree" implies, to me at least, that although neither participant changed the other's mind, they will continue to have a friendly relationship, as opposed to "I'm not going to waste time arguing with that stupid, stubborn motherfucker anymore!"

It seems to me that "agree to disagree" is a phrase that should only be used when the what's being debated is highly subjective. For instance, you could agree to disagree about, I don't know, whether Star Wars is better than Star Trek or not, but with something like creationism where there is in fact an objective truth in the matter, "agreeing to disagree" would basically be a concession.

The phrase "I concede" means "OK, you're right and I'm wrong."

The phrase "Let's just agree to disagree" means "I don't want to talk about this any more, but I'm still right and you're still wrong, so there."

Then there's also "Everyone's entitled to an opinion" or "You have your opinion and I have mine", both of which basically mean "I'm a fucking sophistic jack-ass" unless you're talking about something totally subjective, like whether strawberries taste good.

I dunno. There are situations in which "let's just agree to disagree" is a very viable way to end an argument decently; i.e if the argument has run it's course, participants are merely repeating themselves and nobody is about to give in. In such circumstances, rather than pounding your head against a wall, it is better to make an agreement to call it quits on that basis.

This, of course, only applies if the other participant also 'agrees'.

There are also discussions where neither side has any strong points (not because the argument itself is subjective, but because neither participant really knows it very well, or are not good at debating, or are both equally stupid) - in those cases I think "agreeing to disagree" is good, because even if one of them is right they're both too stupid to prove it

Then there's also "Everyone's entitled to an opinion" or "You have your opinion and I have mine", both of which basically mean "I'm a fucking sophistic jack-ass" unless you're talking about something totally subjective, like whether strawberries taste good.

I think it can also mean that you just don't have time to keep explaining it 500 times. Losers of the argument do not always have to be the ones using this right? I heard wong talking about brick walls before.

Cornelius wrote:

Then there's also "Everyone's entitled to an opinion" or "You have your opinion and I have mine", both of which basically mean "I'm a fucking sophistic jack-ass" unless you're talking about something totally subjective, like whether strawberries taste good.

I think it can also mean that you just don't have time to keep explaining it 500 times. Losers of the argument do not always have to be the ones using this right? I heard wong talking about brick walls before.

Usually you would not end a conversation with such a person by saying "you have your opinion and I have mine"; you would typically end it with some derogatory remark about your opponent's intellect.