Debating style

Originally posted by invigorate

As No 1 said. Just because we play chess doesn't make us inteligent.

Some of us can't even play chess very well, let alone put up an argument...

Originally posted by prn
I have to agree that a Hegelian synthesis is not always possible. Especially in those cases, e.g., a debate between a proponent of evolution and a Young-Earth Creationist, my own strategy tends to be aimed squarely at the audience, especially those who might be just a little bit undecided. And in a case like that, I do feel that debating style is very important. ...[text shortened]... ite, thorough, well-reasoned presentation with lots of evidence than to a rant.

JMHO,
Paul

That's what I would have thought. And I agree that there are some cases where a Hegelian synthesis is not possible, because in some cases there is no middle ground (e.g. either the moon landing took place or it didn't). And in some of those cases I don't go into the debate with the idea that I might change my opinion. I might still learn some interesting facts, I might also learn to understand the other side a bit better, and I'll be forced to think through the reasons for my own opinion thoroughly, which is always a good thing.