Debating style

Originally posted by Nordlys
Reading and writing in these forums for a while, I have come to the conclusion that my idea of a good debate is widely different from some other people's. For me, a good debate is an exchange of arguments and opinions about a subject, and the main goal is for both sides to get some new thoughts and knowledge about the matter, to understand the other side a l ...[text shortened]... flame war instead of a debate, and the original subject will be forgotten.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Silver Slayer
I agree! I find it really enoying when I make a comment that I consider to be relevant and then it is ripped apart by certain people who have an obsesive need to correct spelling grammar etc. Also when stupid comments are made in mid debate, the debate loses its structure and pace and becomes yet enougher countless thread that disappears back through the thread log!

For me, a good debate is about getting personal and insulting my opponent.

Originally posted by Nordlys
Well, I am one of the people who like to correct spelling and grammar, although I hold myself back most of the time, and I seldom do it in serious debates. Bad spelling makes the posts much harder to read. And mistakes are often funny because they can change the meaning, so if I point them out, it's often simply to have some fun. And I am actually glad when people point out my mistakes to me, and wished they did it more often.

Originally posted by rwingett
The problem often arises when people with polar opposite views, which are completely irreconcilable, try to conduct a debate. We see this frequently in the Spirituality forum, where there often is no middle ground. How is one supposed to have a meaningful debate with a creationist freak? You can't. The only recourse is to heap scorn and derision upon them. ...[text shortened]... le views, there can be no meaningful debate. It will inevitably devolve into a shouting match.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Rwingo: "The only recourse is to heap scorn and derision upon them."

There are other possibilities.

Besides, what are you trying to accomplish with that kind of action ?

Originally posted by rwingett
You're not a creationist. What does it matter to you?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I am a member of the same chess community.

Please answer the question: What are you trying to accomplish with that kind of action ?

Originally posted by rwingett
I'm trying to damage the self-esteem of the creationists and make them feel sad :'(

Originally posted by ivanhoe
.... or maybe you are trying to lift your self-esteem and make yourself feel superior and good ..... 🙂

Originally posted by rwingett
How is one supposed to have a meaningful debate with a creationist freak? You can't. The only recourse is to heap scorn and derision upon them.

Originally posted by Nordlys
Looking at the Spiritual Forum and the General Forum right now, I see your point even more. I'll go to bed before I forget everything I have said in this thread and start heaping scorn and derision upon a certain freak.

Edit: Argh, I can't... hold... myself... back...

Originally posted by rwingett
Perhaps. I work in mysterious ways.

Debating style:

I think the most important thing regarding this question is that you have to acknowledge you cannot change other people. I think we all suffer from that illusion from time to time .... some more than others, I have to say ...

You can observe this phenomenon in its most pure form in the Spirituality forum. Each side is trying to change or to educate the other. This attitude isn't exactly a good fundament for a fruitfull debate, in fact it is a recipe for disaster.

Originally posted by bbi2
i think some of the debaters in the Moon landings debate should read here.

seems because Skeeter likes his conspiracy theories and discussing some of the finer points of why he thinks they are faked he has been abused for his opinion.

Its sad.🙄