Debating debate

Former Member · May 2005

as much wood as he could if he hadn't already chucked his wood away

Former Member · May 2005

i have no problem if people go on and on as if they were right, if they are quoting esthablished fact on the matter of something

Former Member · May 2005

So, what do you think there needs to happen for a proper debate to happen?

2 opposing opinions.

Asking people to always provide evidence and links etc is a waste of time for 2 reasons.

(1) It wouldn't happen.

(2) It would make for boring debate.

And after all, arent we all here to have a little fun?

Former Member · May 2005

The Matadore wrote:

And after all, arent we all here to have a little fun?

i agree now where's all those right-wing psuedo-metallers till i get a debate going

Former Member · May 2005

turlough wrote:

as much wood as he could if he hadn't already chucked his wood away

I like chucking wood!

Former Member · May 2005

Kermit wrote:

I like chucking wood!

i chuck my wood far too much for my own liking

Former Member · May 2005

The Matadore wrote:

2 opposing opinions.

Asking people to always provide evidence and links etc is a waste of time for 2 reasons.

(1) It wouldn't happen.

(2) It would make for boring debate.

And after all, arent we all here to have a little fun?

I think it makes for much more interesting debate. It means you can actually learn something. How can you learn anything from people giving a bunch of opinions, just cos they reckon thats wot happens, not cos its actually true.

Former Member · May 2005

The debate would end up like a university lecture. It would have no spontaneity, jokes, or one liners. YOu owuld have to read through miles of text in each response, then formulate an equally long and dull response.

Former Member · May 2005

Some people on this forum try to theorise too much, taking their views from text books, rather than from the real world around them, their own experience, or even the views from their own heart & mind.

We can all start quoting bits from published sources but what does that prove?
Much better in my view to tell it as you see it, and for reasons known to yourself.

Just my view.

Former Member · May 2005

The Matadore wrote:

The debate would end up like a university lecture. It would have no spontaneity, jokes, or one liners. YOu owuld have to read through miles of text in each response, then formulate an equally long and dull response.

It still can and often does have jokes, but it doesnt have to detract from the actual debate.
If you want lightheartedness and opinionated stuff, there is always `anything goes`.

Former Member · May 2005

And after all, arent we all here to have a little fun?

Nope. I am here primarily to learn how people think. Your idea of debate is a lot like what I would call "pointless argument" If you have already made your mind up about a topic, then why even post or read the thread?

2 opposing opinions.

Only 2? Very limited and pretty pointless.

Some people on this forum try to theorise too much, taking their views from text books, rather than from the real world around them, their own experience, or even the views from their own heart & mind.

I only take my views from my experience, and I can assure you that you don't do it. Presenting views "from your heart and mind" is pointless in a debate, I don't have you heart or your mind, and so cannot know what you are on about. If you are presented with facts that invalidate your view, it is a sign of insanity to continue to hold it.

We can all start quoting bits from published sources but what does that prove?

that there is a factual basis for your opinion.

Much better in my view to tell it as you see it, and for reasons known to yourself.

Then why talk at all? You are wasting your time doing that.

Thanks for your answers, Mat and RK, but they are useless to me and teach me nothing other than it's pointless to discuss anything with you at all.

Former Member · May 2005

klintock wrote:

that there is a factual basis for your opinion.

... and there is always a factual basis to counter your opinion. Where does that get us, nowhere.

Thanks for your answers, Mat and RK, but they are useless to me and teach me nothing other than it's pointless to discuss anything with you at all.

Same for us, you're on a different planet.

Former Member · May 2005

klintock wrote:

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?

I`d say question EVERYTHING,(especially one`s own "belief system")

seeker

Former Member · May 2005

Rich Kid wrote:

We can all start quoting bits from published sources but what does that prove?
Much better in my view to tell it as you see it, and for reasons known to yourself.

I hope you keep that in mind next time you think of quoting the Bible to justify your bizarre views on homosexuality and a number of other issues.

Former Member · May 2005

rainbow brite wrote:

thing is, thats not debating then is it?
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?

I do my best but some of the boards are active for days - I tend to post only weekday afternoons, sorry

We is those who let you down, this I of we will try harder in future, miss.

Former Member · May 2005

The point of quoting sources isn't to stiffle the expression of personal experience - it's fine to say 'I believe...' or 'I my experience...'.

What doesn't work is when someone quotes something from personal experience as a fact. If something is expressed as a fact (say x number of people came into this country or x number of soliders have been killed in Iraq) then it needs some substantive source. Otherwise people are simply able to make up facts to support a case which doesn't help debate at all.

Of course their are facts that support any number of sides to an arguement but that doesn't discount their value, it allows people to see where the basis of someone's views come from.

Which is why if you want to use facts and quotes in debates you are required to find sources for them, otherwise why would anyone believe what's being said? If they don't believe it, because there is no evidence, then there's very little hope of debate.

Though I'd also say that debate requires an element of openness. If someone uses personal experience as a basis for their post then further discussion is inevitably going to focus on understanding that experience and questioning the conclusions drawn by the poster - which requires people to debate what they saw, heard about, or thought. Which is why people ask about where things happened and when.

In my view one thing debate should never be about is people just standing on a soapbox shouting what they think (from whatever side of the political spectrum) which is why engaging in a debate should be about dialogue, communication, answers and questions. If you already know you're right about everything you should be a politician, not someone involved in a debate.

Former Member · May 2005

I`d say question EVERYTHING,(especially one`s own "belief system")

Well, I can change my beliefs like I change my socks, but I get your point. I like coming on here 'cos everyone else is more than happy to question my beliefs for me. :thumb:

Oh, and cheers for your post Jim, I like this bit especially :yes: -

In my view one thing debate should never be about is people just standing on a soapbox shouting what they think (from whatever side of the political spectrum) which is why engaging in a debate should be about dialogue, communication, answers and questions. If you already know you're right about everything you should be a politician, not someone involved in a debate.

Thanks.

Former Member · May 2005

If you already know you're right about everything you should be a politician, not someone involved in a debate.

Surely there the last people we want as politicians.... Anyway sounds more like academics...

Former Member · May 2005

If you go into a debate not being prepared to change your opinion one iota then there's no point.

I can be very stubborn sometimes, too stubborn, but things on here have opened my eyes to other viewpoints, and I aren't as sure as I was four years ago as to what I think.

Maybe I'm just not young enough to know everything anymore:D

Former Member · May 2005

mentioning no names here but ...humility as i understand it means ...teachable ...open to learning.

Debating debate

Comments