If I read some posters here I am under the impression that Debate is the repetition of slogans in the eyes of those "contributors".
In fact should debate lead to insights?
Should new ideas be created?
Should issued slogans be critically analysed?
And most importantly:
Should positions which have been shown to be wrong be given up?
2 edits
@ponderable saidFor a period during “The great suspensions” there was some nuanced debate, and yes, I at least came to understand why and how other posters had reasonably arrived at their position even if I didn’t share their position. It was a lot quieter though.
If I read some posters here I am under the impression that Debate is the repetition of slogans in the eyes of those "contributors".
In fact should debate lead to insights?
Should new ideas be created?
Should issued slogans be critically analysed?
And most importantly:
Should positions which have been shown to be wrong be given up?
I suppose it is a quality over quantity of debate equation.
@ponderable saidIt depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to win debates, nothing changes. If your goal is to engage in discussion, new insights will naturally emerge.
If I read some posters here I am under the impression that Debate is the repetition of slogans in the eyes of those "contributors".
In fact should debate lead to insights?
Should new ideas be created?
Should issued slogans be critically analysed?
And most importantly:
Should positions which have been shown to be wrong be given up?
@ponderable saidIt should, Pondy,
If I read some posters here I am under the impression that Debate is the repetition of slogans in the eyes of those "contributors".
In fact should debate lead to insights?
Should new ideas be created?
Should issued slogans be critically analysed?
And most importantly:
Should positions which have been shown to be wrong be given up?
But people have agendas - often hidden ones. People also lie and deny.