Originally posted by flexmoreHi flexmore et al,
did you ever change your opinion as a result of a debate?
please give an example.
I posted a similar question a while ago - maybe you were referring to that.
Actually, my question related specifically to debates on RHP.
The reason for this qualification is that most intelligent beings will change their opinions about many things as they grow, (both in body and spirit). Very few adults will claim to hold the same views they did when they were in college! And often this is due to a debate of some kind (whether in books, in person, or just by osmosis). So, clearly, good debates can and do result in changed opinions.
However, at RHP it is extremely difficult to hold a sensible debate, in view of the side currents and red herrings! This thread is a good example! Rather than debating the merits of debating per se, we are already again knee-deep in creation/evolution!!!
Sadly, I have no solution for the problem. The situation is inevitable in an open forum. So, lately I play more chess and pay less attention to the debating forum.......
In peace
CJ 😞
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJustPeople seldom change their opinion as a consequence of any debate. Debates serve the purpose of only bringing all kinds of opinions in the zone of consideration. HAVE YOUR SAY NO MATTER WHAT OTHERS SAY - is the spirit of debates here.
Hi flexmore et al,
I posted a similar question a while ago - maybe you were referring to that.
Actually, my question related specifically to debates [b] on RHP.
The reason for this qualification is that most intelligent beings ...[text shortened]... less attention to the debating forum.......
In peace
CJ 😞[/b]
It is in the detached observation by a third person observing the progress of arguments put forward by the proponents of conflicting ideas, that some common truth inherent in all ideologies gradually emerges. This you can call the evolution process of ideas about truth and reality.
Truth and reality are but one. They are not relative. Perceptions of truth may vary. But perception is not the truth or reality. Everybody is dogged about his own perception. And the change his opinion is contingent upon his own new experience. That is why as one ages, one does not hold on to the same beliefs as one held during his college days.
That is one reason , as pointed out earlier on this thread, people in a free society , generally are left-oriented in youth but gradually convert to right, as they mature in age and experience.
However in the context of a debate, the old adage -- A MAN CONVINCED AGAINST HIS WILL, IS OF THE SAME OPINION STILL-- holds.
Originally posted by gamebitloverWell said.
People seldom change their opinion as a consequence of any debate. Debates serve the purpose of only bringing all kinds of opinions in the zone of consideration. HAVE YOUR SAY NO MATTER WHAT OTHERS SAY - is the spirit of debates here.
It is in the detached observation by a third person observin ...[text shortened]... adage -- A MAN CONVINCED AGAINST HIS WILL, IS OF THE SAME OPINION STILL-- holds.
Kelly
Originally posted by gamebitloverEverything you say I agree with - and you are not refuting anything that I said!
People seldom change their opinion as a consequence of any debate. Debates serve the purpose of only bringing all kinds of opinions in the zone of consideration. HAVE YOUR SAY NO MATTER WHAT OTHERS SAY - is the spirit of debates here.
Truth and reality are but one. They are not relative. Perc ...[text shortened]... adage -- A MAN CONVINCED AGAINST HIS WILL, IS OF THE SAME OPINION STILL-- holds.
But you missed my main point, and that is that often red herrings and stupid, irrelevant remarks by idiots spoil the debating process.
The old adage of the four blind men describing an elephant comes to mind. One, holding the trunk, says an elephant is like a snake. Another, feeling the leg, says it is like a tree. The third feels the side and says, no, an elephant is a large rock, and the fourth, holding an ear, says the elephant clearly is a flat sheet.
In a way we are all blind, and have only partial truth. For this reason debating and discussing "our point of view" with others of different persuasion, can help open the eyes of both a little more.
No, I do not disparage debating. What I DO feel is unfortunate is that RHP debates often deteriorate into merely mudslinging, personal attacks and totally irrelevant "contributions".
So I agree totally with you to let everyone HAVE THEIR SAY NO MATTER WHAT. I only appeal to the authors of threads to try to guide contributors back to the subject, and to contributors to at least have a smattering of logic and relevancy in the presentation of their views!
In peace
CJ
Debates do change peoples opinions this is a fact otherwise knowledge would never be dispersed or pass on from generation to generation.
The younger, the more open minded and the less knowledgable you are the more likely you are to have your opinions changed.
The quality of the debate is also important as well and whether the debate is at the required level for your knowldege base.
You can spend hours wasting time bringing others up to your level of knowledge so they can participate in the debate in this case it is not a debate but an educational session where one imparts ones knowledge to others and fields questions and theories that they have encountered a thousand times.
In my experience everytime you participate in an debate there is less and less new stuff so maybe 99% is regurgitated and there is 1% new concept or idea. This is not just in debates though but in the world in general.
It is beholden on a good debater not to restate concepts that they realise their companions have already heard of and dealt with simply to show off or be annoying. The best debates are when all participating seek new ground.
If you feel that your opinion does not change it may be that you have not encountered anything new and not that you are trapped in your own dogma. Assuming of course that you have personal intellectual integrity and are not blinkered by belief or emotion.
I have just started in this forum but I have yet to encounter anything new or particularly interesting that will signficantly impact of my knowledge base, reality references or personality constructs... but hey its only my first week ask me in a month.
Originally posted by Deepfaultsounds like you should start a thread with the question that suits your knowledge "openness" ... then you can explore your own openness to debate 😉
Debates do change peoples opinions this is a fact otherwise knowledge would never be dispersed or pass on from generation to generation.
The younger, the more open minded and the less knowledgable you are the more likely you are to have your opinions changed.
The quality of the debate is also important as well and whether the debate is at the requir ...[text shortened]... ty references or personality constructs... but hey its only my first week ask me in a month.
Originally posted by flexmoreI have it is called Dan Brown - A proof of God's non existence.
sounds like you should start a thread with the question that suits your knowledge "openness" ... then you can explore your own openness to debate 😉
But I am curious about what you are implying.... are you insinuating that I am not 'open' to debate or merely joshing with me for being pretentious.
I would hope that I have not posted anything YET that implies I am not open to debate as for me it is very early days.
Originally posted by WulebgrWell, I'm not sure of the significance of the "shifting sand" part of that, but I wait with anticipitational relishment.
I may try to excavate the paper from storage, but it won't be for a few days yet. In the meantime, fragments from that paper have appeared in shifting sand. 😕
😏
2 edits
Originally posted by Deepfaulti do not think anyone is open to debate on everything.
I have it is called Dan Brown - A proof of God's non existence.
But I am curious about what you are implying.... are you insinuating that I am not 'open' to debate or merely joshing with me for being pretentious.
I would hope tha ...[text shortened]... implies I am not open to debate as for me it is very early days.
i believe we each have our areas of sacred ground where we just do not care about the arguements of others.
maybe our grandparents told us a sacred truth ... or whatever.
no personal offence intended.
i am enjoying the landing on the moon thread: for me it was a sacred truth that the landings were true ... i feel more open about it now.
to be able to examine the evidence openly is liberating.
Originally posted by flexmoreA few things are historical facts beyond dispute, although you can always find someone to dispute them:
i do not think anyone is open to debate on everything.
i believe we each have our areas of sacred ground where we just do not care about the arguements of others.
maybe our grandparents told us a sacred truth ... or whatever.
no personal offence intended.
i am enjoying the landing on the moon thread: for me it was a sacred truth that the landings we ...[text shortened]... e ... i feel more open about it now.
to be able to examine the evidence openly is liberating.
We do not know who sunk the Maine in 1898.
Prohibition empowered rumrunners.
The U.S. lost a destroyer to combat three months before Pearl Harbor.
President Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
President Nixon lied about Cambodia.
Neil Armstrong walked on the moon.
Oliver North lied under oath during the Iran-Contra hearings.
William Clinton lied about Monica.
George W. Bush lied about evidence for WMDs in Iraq.
and many thousands upon thousands more.
There are also interpretations that will always remain subject to interpretation of the evidence:
President Truman made a hasty decision to use nuclear weapons because the Soviets were the intended audience.
President Kennedy is responsible for the quagmire of Vietnam.
President Clinton permitted the U.S. intelligence infrastructure to weaken under his watch.
George W. Bush is the strongest Presidential leader since Ronald Reagan.
It is important to be able to distinguish facts from opinions; and it is important to be able to evaluate the credibility of the sources. Those who cannot do that are not capable of debate. However, their opinions can be shaped still--FOX specializes in this, as do the tabloids.