If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Debating debate
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I am wondering what there needs to be in order for a good and full debate to take place. It seems to me that there must be certain criteria that must be met in order for meaningful discussion to occur.
Sources provided, seperate from opinion and that sort of thing.
So, what do you think there needs to happen for a proper debate to happen?
Some of the things seem obvious to me, like a willingness to change your mind if shown to be wrong, or not hitting for emotional reactions just because you are losing.
Any thoughts?
Sources provided, seperate from opinion and that sort of thing.
So, what do you think there needs to happen for a proper debate to happen?
Some of the things seem obvious to me, like a willingness to change your mind if shown to be wrong, or not hitting for emotional reactions just because you are losing.
Any thoughts?
0
Comments
I'm sure you have the fundamentals for in-person but online it's impossible to fix.
how does shutting up and leaving a thread constitute winning...
Not sure that's quite so important, because it ends in a sort of factual ping-pong, with two people batting the same point to and fro, arguing over smaller and smaller differences of detail until one of them gets fed up, at which point the other claims 'victory.' I think it's often better to reply to someone's post as a whole - although answering direct questions - rather than taking it apart line by line.
Take a guess who could that have been...
Yea I haven't got the time or the temperament for point by point volleyball. I tend to say what I want and look in the next day to see if anyone's given me reason to change my mind. We aren't being rude or running away if we don't answer every response, we just have other stuff to do...
Read my post above. Don't you think that under such circumstances the poster in question must answer a simple question?
And bear in mind it has been asked to them not fewer than 40 times, over a period of several weeks. No "didn't have time to reply" excuses there.
I was part of that thread! IIRC, there was a suggestion that women don't have anal sex...
Perhaps I should have drawn a distinction between replying to specific points, and picking out specific sentences to comment on. It's a difference of degree, but a difference nonetheless IMO. In a lot of cases, however, if two people are putting forward opposing views on a particular subject then it's often IMO better to address the post as a whole and the assumptions underlying it than to pick it apart, although that's not to say direct questions or particular points shouldn't be picked up on.
There are people who have differing views and then there are people who are nasty pieces of work. They hide behind the thin guise of an "opposing" viewpoint.
I asked him once myself why he thought homosexual sex or buggery was unnatural, but he didn't answer because he knows he can't answer - it's only his belief. I only asked him the question once, anybody who kept repeating the question is silly to waste their own time.
On the thread I was involved in a moderator joined in and when faced with RK's repeated claims that queer sex was unnatural, perverted, and that homosexuals needed redeeming, she objected only to the queer tag...the rest apparently wasn't defamatory. :rolleyes: If moderators can't figure out the rules for our debates what chance us?
Was that in reference to me??
To date the poster in question has refused to answer such simple question. By now an answer is academic though, because everyone knows what the poster would answer (and what would that make the poster). That is why they have refused to answer in the first place. Caught out, and in a rather careless manner.
No, not at all.
it's not that...you just never accepted that smacking was another form of discipline and an acceptable one at that...some people would find that condescending and patronising thats all
Agreed. No more pet nicknames/queer comments would be a good thing.
Fair comment. Thread derailing (which i am also pretty guilty of) can be a pain in the ass.
Guilty as charged.
Seems totally fair, from reputable sources, or acknowledging bias when they do use stuff like the Daily Mail or Indymedia or whatever.
Pretty tricky once we get warmed up but I can see why we got called scary.
Moderators aren't the primary users of the board, I think there's no harm in asking these questions, myself. Conventions aren't rules but are usually needed.
I would just like to add that in order for a debate to have any meaning then both sides must want to actually explore the issue athand, rather than just using it as an excuse to become a kind of right/left wing jukebox.
Thanks for the replies, guys. :wave:
You brought that on yourself tbh, I seem to remember that it was you who came in with an attitude problem :chin:
Gah. I do not have an attitude problem. :thumb:
Thats just putting an opinion over.
Debating IS the ping ponging of ideas. I quite enjoy it if im interested in the subject. Putting over opinions is OK if thats what is asked for, but in the debating forum, youre kind of expected to debate, and its not unreasonable for people to want you to keep going once youve started or to substantiate your claims.
Whos `we` by the way? Are you more than one person?
See that was one of the best debates of late. People actually exchanging views on the situation rather than having the debates brought contantly back to the same bull shit that they have been of late.
how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck would chuck wood????