Originally posted by lausey... like noticing someone's gender
The debate started off civil but the hoaxes arguments got picked apart. It is then that it got a bit messy. It also helps to read the person's argument opposing yours rather than repeat conspiracy claims that have already been refuted. This also requires being observant, like noticing someone's gender.
It's the Princess's classical problem she has to deal with at RHP ..... 🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by NordlysI think there are two general positions on debating on these forums.
Reading and writing in these forums for a while, I have come to the conclusion that my idea of a good debate is widely different from some other people's. For me, a good debate is an exchange of arguments and opinions about a subject, and the main goal is for both sides to get some new thoughts and knowledge about the matter, to understand the other side a l flame war instead of a debate, and the original subject will be forgotten.
Any thoughts?
My position is that debate is about evidence and counter-evidence. I don't believe a Hegelian synthesis is always possible, but I would certainly be open to it.
The other position is that debate is about winning over the audience/judges. Debating style is very important to those who hold such a position, even if they don't rate it equally or higher than substance.
In my view, the second position is at the root of much of the insults that fly around in this forum and the Spirituality forum.
EDIT: That, and no1marauder!
I guess I have mixed feelings on all this.
On the one hand, I like the free-wheeling argument, and I have sometimes defended the antics of some of the “bad boys” on here. I probably will again.
On the other hand, I once lost control after being insulted by a poster who then began to post things like “vistesd says,” and attribute to me statements I never made. I started to bait him, and my anger spilled over into debates with others. In the end, I banned myself from the forums for a month or so because I didn’t like my own behavior. Somehow, since then, I get less offended than I used to if someone hurls ad hominems at me.
I still engage in sometimes sharp debate, I can get a bit sarcastic (though I try not to), I sometimes “get my hackles up,” and sometimes I feel that apologies are necessary.
Originally posted by NordlysEntirely agree! Finally someone says something. A debate is a conflict of ideals and ideals only. It isn't to see how many four letter words you can string together or how much you can try and degrade someone's self-esteem. I have already experienced personal insulting because I have an alternate opinion on a massive scale. If any of you have ever been on a high school debate team, at the meets, do they sit there and yell f*** you b**** across the tables? Somehow I think not. They display their opinions in a formal and respectful manner. Wow, much like our government.😉Nothing is resolved through yelling and name-calling. Ideas are and should be exchanged in a peaceful and diplomatic fashion.
Reading and writing in these forums for a while, I have come to the conclusion that my idea of a good debate is widely different from some other people's. For me, a good debate is an exchange of arguments and opinions about a subject, and the main goal is for both sides to get some new thoughts and knowledge about the matter, to understand the other side a l ...[text shortened]... flame war instead of a debate, and the original subject will be forgotten.
Any thoughts?
Originally posted by ivanhoeOh dear God… Does such thing.. really exist???
Universal Declaration of Human Rights-Article 1.
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
Its like we are preparing for a Martian Invasion..
Originally posted by ivanhoeSounds easy enough, but if someone writes something as hilarious as this: "so do you me your going to be a muder or not eat the bible says to do those", I can't resist. Besides, you don't seem to be very good at following your own advice either.
If you can't have a meaningful debate with somebody then the solution to the problem is easy: Don't have a debate.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerDo you think that insults actually help winning over the audience/judges? This is an honest question, I really don't know. It certainly doesn't work to win me over. On the other hand, I can see that insults get a lot of recs, so maybe they are convincing for some people.
I think there are two general positions on debating on these forums.
My position is that debate is about evidence and counter-evidence. I don't believe a Hegelian synthesis is always possible, but I would certainly be open to it.
The other position is that debate is about winning over the audience/judges. Debating style is very important to thos ults that fly around in this forum and the Spirituality forum.
EDIT: That, and no1marauder!
I am not sure the two styles you mention are always so clear. Someone might mainly take your position, but still try to win the debate and use some rhetorical tactics, for example. There's also the emotional aspect (people getting offended or angry and sometimes losing control) which I think is pretty much independent from those two styles, and which is also responsible for many insults.
Originally posted by ivanhoeFor me, in a good debate there needs to be an openness for change (not changing people, of course, but changing opinions or the point of view) on both sides. So I don't entirely agree with you. If I expect that my opponent won't change his/her opinion at all, no matter how the debate will go, that doesn't sound like a good starting point for a meaningful debate. The problem, as I see it, is that many people do expect their opponents to be open for change, but they don't have the same openness themselves.
Debating style:
I think the most important thing regarding this question is that you have to acknowledge you cannot change other people. I think we all suffer from that illusion from time to time .... some more than others, I have to say ...
Originally posted by NordlysNordlys: "Besides, you don't seem to be very good at following your own advice either."
Sounds easy enough, but if someone writes something as hilarious as this: "so do you me your going to be a muder or not eat the bible says to do those", I can't resist. Besides, you don't seem to be very good at following your own advice either.
Ho ho ho ..... you cannot possibly know how many times I indeed decided to follow my own advice ....... 😉
Nordlys: ... but if someone writes something as hilarious as this: "so do you me your going to be a muder or not eat the bible says to do those"
This is indeed irresistibly intriguing ...... 🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by NordlysNordlys: "If I expect that my opponent won't change his/her opinion at all, no matter how the debate will go, that doesn't sound like a good starting point for a meaningful debate."
For me, in a good debate there needs to be an openness for change (not changing people, of course, but changing opinions or the point of view) on both sides. So I don't entirely agree with you. If I expect that my opponent won't change his/her opinion at all, no matter how the debate will go, that doesn't sound like a good starting point for a meaningful deb ...[text shortened]... ect their opponents to be open for change, but they don't have the same openness themselves.
Sometimes you even reach a point sooner or later (with some people rather sooner than later ... 😀 ) where your opponent clearly indicates not to be willing to accept anything you say ...... continued verbal abuse is such an indicator.
Nordlys: "The problem, as I see it, is that many people do expect their opponents to be open for change, but they don't have the same openness themselves."
It happens all the time, but you will not hear any names from me .....
Originally posted by lucifershammerI have to agree that a Hegelian synthesis is not always possible. Especially in those cases, e.g., a debate between a proponent of evolution and a Young-Earth Creationist, my own strategy tends to be aimed squarely at the audience, especially those who might be just a little bit undecided. And in a case like that, I do feel that debating style is very important. That's why I try to be especially patient, calm, reasonable and polite. Heaping scorn on my opponent in a case like that strikes me as counterproductive. In my experience, the audience of potentially undecided readers/listeners is generally going to react much more favorably to a polite, thorough, well-reasoned presentation with lots of evidence than to a rant.
I think there are two general positions on debating on these forums.
My position is that debate is about evidence and counter-evidence. I don't believe a Hegelian synthesis is always possible, but I would certainly be open to it.
The other position is that debate is about winning over the audience/judges. Debating style is very important to thos ...[text shortened]... ults that fly around in this forum and the Spirituality forum.
EDIT: That, and no1marauder!
JMHO,
Paul
Debating about the nature of debate........ hmmmmmmm........ Debating for the sake of debate, arguing about argument? This thread is the metaphorical hole to be filled and left just as it began: undug.
In my opinion: my opinion does not matter. Is my opinion superfluous?
No!
Why?
Because it is on record and can be compared with the facts at any future point...... Debate turns to pluralist -'tyranny of the ignorant majority'- opinion polling because people do not check the facts when confronted, they merely opine on a deviated subject to save face: pluralism will be the death of academia. We now live in a society that allows Christians to teach their children (in school) about creationism. Freedom of belief should not extend this far into pluralistic anarchy.
So, must there be truth and logic which are not relative? Can we debate meaningfully if there is not?