Go back
Metathread 1: Softening us up

Metathread 1: Softening us up

Debates

r
CHAOS GHOST!!!

Elsewhere

Joined
29 Nov 02
Moves
17317
Clock
17 Aug 04
Vote Up
Vote Down

Since no-one took rwingett's very good idea very seriously, I'd like to ask everyone how frequently they ''agree'' with the views they advocate in a debate, or if this is tautological and one must agree with something by virtue of having defended it.

C
Moderately Offensive

All up in yo' face!

Joined
14 Oct 03
Moves
28590
Clock
17 Aug 04
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by royalchicken
Since no-one took rwingett's very good idea very seriously, I'd like to ask everyone how frequently they ''agree'' with the views they advocate in a debate, or if this is tautological and one must agree with something by virtue of having defended it.
I don't think your question has a tautological answer.
Anybody with any background in debate knows that
a good debater can debate both sides of an issue equally
well, while keeping his personal views seperate from
his arguments.

Equally possible is a debater who is so dedicated to
his personal beliefs that he is simply unable to compose
an argument to the contrary. More often than not, such
a person will not be able to effectively support his position
in an organized debate.

As for myself, more often than not, I believe in the arguments
I put forward here. Although, it is not uncommon for me to
play devil's advocate against someone whose belief system
is particularly fragile in order to highlight what is wrong with
their arguments, even though I may agree with their
conclusion; or against a very skilled debater whom I can lure
into a good battle, simply for the enjoyment of the battle, just
like chess, without any personal agenda of convincing that
person of any belief that I hold.

Dr. Cribs

o
Paralysed analyst

On a ship of fools

Joined
26 May 04
Moves
25780
Clock
17 Aug 04
Vote Up
Vote Down

I think I agree with the views I put. I certainly intend to. The thing is, like most human beings my "views" are quite complex and maybe even self-contradictory at times.

Many of the issues that get debated are very complex and there is no way I can put my entire "view" in one post. And that assumes I have a fully formed view in the first place. There are many issues where I have some key points I will not back down on, some opinions that I am quite commited to but willing to negotiate on, some provisional positions that I am more than happy to have changed and some things on which I'm likely to throw my hands up in the air and declare it's all too hard.

Not unlike chess, really.

With my legal training I probably could argue a view I don't agree with. But I've got no real desire to do so. I suspect lawyers only actually do that when they have a client who's so bloody-minded/delusional that they won't take no for an answer. Or maybe it's just me and this is why I'll never go into legal practise.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.