12 Feb 06
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 little better, and maybe even change your own opinion. If it's about a subject I am passionate about, it may very well be heated and emotional. But for me, a good debate is never about getting personal and insulting each other. Some people seem to think that this makes a debate more interesting. In my opinion, it's much more likely to kill the debate than to add something to it. If someone is insulted, he'll quite likely react by doing the same to the person who insulted him, and suddenly we'll have a flame war instead of a debate, and the original subject will be forgotten.
Any thoughts?
12 Feb 06
Originally posted by NordlysFrom my own recent experience of contributing to the boards i do find that as long as people who are responding to your posts do so by attacking the ball and not the player, the debate gets quite involved and very rewarding.
.. If someone is insulted, he'll quite likely react by doing the same to the person who insulted him, and suddenly we'll have a flame war instead of a debate, and the original subject will be forgotten.
Any thoughts?
Its probably hard not to stray from the chosen topic a bit sometimes especially when 2 or 3 concurrent threads all sharing the same core list of contributers may use an idea across threads that rapidly can get out of hand such that positions taken on one topic tend to permeate other similar posts.
Its probably unworkable but it would be nice in the truer debating tradition for people to be arbitrarily chosen to defend or attack a chosen proposition. The net benefit to our debates would be to force people to think outside of their long held beliefs and learn to argue for its own sake, rather than just churn out selected variations on a particular well worn theme of theirs'.
12 Feb 06
Originally posted by kmax87Exactly. It's when it turns into "you must be a complete idiot if you don't agree with me" that I feel the point of the debate is easily lost, and people are hurt unnecessarily on the way.
From my own recent experience of contributing to the boards i do find that as long as people who are responding to your posts do so by attacking the ball and not the player, the debate gets quite involved and very rewarding.
Its probably hard not to stray from the chosen topic a bit sometimes especially when 2 or 3 concurrent threads all sharing the same core list of contributers may use an idea across threads that rapidly can get out of hand such that positions taken on one topic tend to permeate other similar posts.
I don't really have problems with discussions going off-topic, as long as the new topic is interesting. Of course sometimes this can be avoidance; someone trying to find something else to discuss because they hope everybody will forget some difficult question they can't answer.
Its probably unworkable but it would be nice in the truer debating tradition for people to be arbitrarily chosen to defend or attack a chosen proposition.
That could be interesting. I haven't done that since high-school. I once did something somewhat similar in music - I did an improvisation which was supposed to express the feelings of a German war criminal at the end of World War II. A very interesting experience, and probably the most difficult improvisation I have ever done.
12 Feb 06
Originally posted by NordlysMy temptation here is to say: Shut up!
.
Any thoughts?
But more seriously I would say:
The joy of these forums is that people can post what the want, you can ignore irritating or irrelevant posts, and reply to posts that most stimulate.
Good posts are provocative. The way people react to provacation is often aggressively. It is because these debates are without a chair person, that these debates become unstructured.
As No 1 said. Just because we play chess doesn't make us inteligent.
12 Feb 06
Originally posted by NordlysI agree with you.When I think, only the other day I made a personal insult because I thought there was no logic behind a persons post (even though both the poster and I were athiests) and I wanted to prove there was no logic behind it but in the course I told them they were an idiot, and I think proved it.
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?
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=38160
Argh I don't know how to do it in a clickable way. Even looked on the FAQ but its not on there. I know I need the last numbers and some square brackets.
12 Feb 06
Originally posted by Will Everitt[ threadid ]thread number[ /threadid ]
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=38160
Argh I don't know how to do it in a clickable way. Even looked on the FAQ but its not on there. I know I need the last numbers and some square brackets.
Thread 38160
12 Feb 06
Originally posted by NordlysThread 38160
[ threadid ]thread number[ /threadid ]
Thread 38160
Brilliant thanks.
12 Feb 06
Originally posted by NordlysThe 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.
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?
In order for there to be a meaningful debate there must be some overlap in each party's views. If the parties hold diametrically opposed and irreconcilable views, there can be no meaningful debate. It will inevitably devolve into a shouting match.
12 Feb 06
Originally posted by Will EverittWhere did you tell the poster he/she were an idiot? Here's your post:
I agree with you.When I think, only the other day I made a personal insult because I thought there was no logic behind a persons post (even though both the poster and I were athiests) and I wanted to prove there was no logic behind it but in the course I told them they were an idiot, and I think proved it.
"By your logic.
One person tells me if I water my plant it will live.
Another person tells me if I water my plant it will die.
They cannot both be right. So they are both wrong.
Think about things before you say them."
As I understand it, you attacked his/her reasoning, not the person. In fact, when you say "think about things before you say them", you express your belief that the person is able to think.
12 Feb 06
Well in a way I attacked the person for not thinking. I didn't do it as in such a crude way as to involve swearing. I really didn't think they had thought about what they were posting and wanted to make it seen, although I see how this is both an argument and a complaint against a person for not thinking.
12 Feb 06
Originally posted by invigorateLol. Actually I have been talked into this, but instead of attacking me, the person who talked me into it seems to have fallen asleep. 😞
My temptation here is to say: Shut up!
But more seriously I would say:
The joy of these forums is that people can post what the want, you can ignore irritating or irrelevant posts, and reply to posts that most stimulate.
Yes, of course. I just find it a bit sad when interesting debates are killed in a flame war, and when people who have good arguments cause others to stop listening to them by insulting them. If you are called an idiot, you are not likely to be open for your "opponent's" arguments.
These "debates" can sometimes be used as a substitute for soap opera, though. I don't have a TV. 😉
12 Feb 06
Originally posted by rwingettYou have a point there. With some people, it's like talking to a brickwall, and I am guilty of having ridiculed some of those people, too. However, if a debate isn't possible, do we really have to replace it with a shouting match? I remember my first encounter with a Christian fundamentalist (freshly converted on a student exchange in the US) in a youth group. We had long discussions which naturally didn't lead anywhere. When he was convinced that he couldn't convert me, and I was convinced that I wouldn't hear anything new anymore, we simply stopped discussing. We continued to tease each other a little, in a friendly way. No shouting matches. Would he have been more open to listen to my point of view if I had started shouting, or would he have been able to convert me if he had started shouting? Certainly not. When people start throwing insults at each other, they usually sound rather stupid and unconvincing. That's why I mind more if people whom I agree with do this - it weakens their (and therefore my) arguments.
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.
