Debate about Debates

[Ancalagon]

So what's the point? Aside from sharpening our wit and improving those rusty debate skills, what do we gain from drawing lines in the proverbial sand? Most debates seem to take place over topics that have no real answer, result in the stepping on toes of many folk, and and generally result in the same conclusion. That we all take sides or establish certain distinctive views, but never come to an agreement, much less a solution.

 

In short, what do we gain from these debates?

[Switch]

Enjoyment? I think some people do enjoy debating, simply because they get to strongly express their views and find out what other people think. Often it does turn into unconstructive bickering, even childish bickering (especially on these forums from what I've seen, not naming anyone in particular but you know who you are). And often people's views remain exactly the same. So practically there may not be much point, but enjoyment wise I think there is.

[Abramul]

Bickering? IMO, bickering is quite funny...although not neckessarily to the people involved!

[Darnoc]

It depends on the point of view. If you see debating as a fighting-sport with wits instead of fists, it is fun (even when you are bickered on, that's part of the sport).

 

About what the uses of debates are:

 

Well, that depends also. There are two distinctions: constructive and unconstructive. An unconstructive debate has the reason of kicking someones butts with words (best example is a political debate), but nothing else. A constructive debate has the reason to "construct" something (that's why they call it "constructive debate). The debaters try to reach a solution on which everyone can agree on and which is usefull for all sides. A good philosophical or scientifical debate is an example for a constructive debate.

[Malchik]

As I have posted before, one of the main purposes in a debate, as opposed to a discussion or an argument (in the aggressive sense) is that the various points of an issue can be seen and considered by those who have not yet made up their minds. The individuals making the debates usually have entrenched views but that does matter. The purpose is not to change their minds but to let the undecided see why others have chosen to take one side or the other.

 

Statements without reasons are not part of a debate. As in 'Half Life is sweet', 'nah, Half Life sucks' or whatever. But if those posters gave a reason why they liked or did not like the game, others thinking of buying it will have a better idea of whether it would suit them. And buying new games can be a hefty expense.

 

The only thing to remember is that more often than not you are posting an opinion or an interpretation of facts. Facts (the genuine irrefutable kind) cannot be debated as such. Any opinion or interpretation is personal and you have no right in stating it as fact. With this little and often ignored caveat, debates are useful and healthy in society. Long may they continue there and on these forums, too.

[Peregrine]

There are two distinctions: constructive and unconstructive. An unconstructive debate has the reason of kicking someones butts with words (best example is a political debate), but nothing else. A constructive debate has the reason to "construct" something (that's why they call it "constructive debate). The debaters try to reach a solution on which everyone can agree on and which is usefull for all sides. A good philosophical or scientifical debate is an example for a constructive debate.

 

Textbook golden mean fallacy. The fact that there are two sides does not mean that the truth is somewhere in the middle, and it can only be constructive if the solution is something everyone can agree on. Sometimes one side is just completely wrong, and that's the end of it.

 

If someone starts a debate claiming the earth is flat, they have a flawed position and the "debate" will consist of their argument being torn apart. It doesn't matter if they agree on it, because there is no "constructive" solution.

 

 

 

 

As for what's the purpose? There's a few:

 

1) Because it's fun. I enjoy winning debates. And more importantly, winning them in a way that the opponent's argument is completely destroyed.

 

2) Because it produces good entertainment. There are few things more amusing than a losing debate opponent's desperate tactics and lack of connection to reality. This forum has produced endless amounts of comedy for my friends and I.

 

3) As Malchik said, because there is an undecided audience. If I completely shatter the opposition's arguments, it doesn't matter if they still stubbornly refuse to concede. None of that audience is going to take their side seriously anymore.

 

4) Because occasionally hell freezes over and one of my opponents might actually change their mind.

[Darnoc]

Textbook golden mean fallacy. The fact that there are two sides does not mean that the truth is somewhere in the middle, and it can only be constructive if the solution is something everyone can agree on. Sometimes one side is just completely wrong, and that's the end of it.

 

If someone starts a debate claiming the earth is flat, they have a flawed position and the "debate" will consist of their argument being torn apart. It doesn't matter if they agree on it, because there is no "constructive" solution.

 

If one side is completely wrong and the other side can prove that, this is the acctual end of the debate. You cannot debate about something which is absolutely certain, there is no point in it. The only way such a debate can continue is when the side which is wrong can bring forth evidence that they might be still right.

 

To take your example of a flat earth: It is idiotic to participate in such a debate, because it is proven that the earth is not flat, but round and so there is no point in debating it. If someone really wants to insist in such an idiotic claim, he can do so, since it is his right to have this opinion. But if he wants to debate such a matter, he must bring forth strong arguments which support his case and which could prove that he is right (something that probably won't happen in his case).

 

A real debate can only exist when the subject is something which isn't clear, isn't proven already. For example we could debate about how gravity acctually works. Perhaps you are aware of both models, the one explaining gravity as a force which pulls, the other one explaining gravity as a force which pushes. We can debate this, because neither of those theories is acctually proven and we can debate as long as they aren't. As soon as someone can bring forth real evidence which tells that he is right, the debate has ended. If the other side is not intelligent enough to accept the evidence, it is their problem.

 

Such a debate can only continue in review of the evidence. The other side may either accept that there is evidence against them and so the debate ends. Or they can bring forth evidence or arguments which could prove the evidence of the other side either wrong or bring new details to the debate which must be considered.

[Ancalagon]

Darnoc Posted Jan 5 2005, 01:38 AM

 

Such a debate can only continue in review of the evidence. The other side may either accept that there is evidence against them and so the debate ends. Or they can bring forth evidence or arguments which could prove the evidence of the other side either wrong or bring new details to the debate which must be considered.

 

So, if there must be tangible evidence for a debate to exist and/or continue, then why is there a constant argument about the existence of a higher being? (i.e God). Why do religions wish to argue that their God exists, and yet they have no evidence save for written accounts which are pretty open and can be taken for metaphorical meanings? To quote Douglas Adams "God says I refuse to proove that I exist, because proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing."

So, if they have no proof (or evidence) then aren't the arguments and debates they set forth inherently flawed? That there is no true evidence, and because of that, a debate regarding the existence of a higher being, is in fact, pointless?

 

 

Peregrine Posted Jan 4 2005, 08:55 PM

1) Because it's fun. I enjoy winning debates. And more importantly, winning them in a way that the opponent's argument is completely destroyed.

 

Tell me something I didn't know :rolleyes: I totally forgot that part of debates, the self-gratification of prooving one's superiority in wit and tact, not to mention oratory skills. Suprisingly (or not??), many of our leaders exhibit a considerable lack in those departments...

[ShinJiOh]

1) Because it's fun. I enjoy winning debates. And more importantly, winning them in a way that the opponent's argument is completely destroyed.

 

2) Because it produces good entertainment. There are few things more amusing than a losing debate opponent's desperate tactics and lack of connection to reality. This forum has produced endless amounts of comedy for my friends and I.

 

3) As Malchik said, because there is an undecided audience. If I completely shatter the opposition's arguments, it doesn't matter if they still stubbornly refuse to concede. None of that audience is going to take their side seriously anymore.

 

4) Because occasionally hell freezes over and one of my opponents might actually change their mind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Being a little egocentric there? The only point I agree with there is Malchik's whereby a debate is argued so that the undecided may be informed.

However, as you uncorrectly state about how many debates are done in such a way as that the oppositions argument is completely shattered. Okay, so on the forums many times have you utterly proved your opposition wrong, but on these forums some of the debates are so idiotic, that I wouldn't be surprised if one came up about how industrial solvent makes a good cocktail. INTR hardly any debates undergo this ending and as such we have friends and family torn apart over many issues.

 

Probably the greatest which comes to mind is in the 1900s when PM Hughs wanted to introduce conscription to Australia, but it says that we cant have that in the constitution, unless we get attacked. Now this debate should have been thrown out the window straight away but because of WW1 people were scared and as such, we had our country SPLIT in half over the issue, luckily for me, it was narrowly defeated.

 

On the whole debates can change minds that should not be changed. Without getting into specific events and thereby changing the subject, perhaps other countries involvement in coups, uprisings and wars could have been avoided if a false debate hadn't produced false information and made people think action WAS necessary.

[Peregrine]

Being a little egocentric there?

 

Congratulations, you've figured it out. I've got a good ego, and I absolutely hate stupidity. This isn't a very difficult thing to figure out.

However, as you uncorrectly state about how many debates are done in such a way as that the oppositions argument is completely shattered. Okay, so on the forums many times have you utterly proved your opposition wrong, but on these forums some of the debates are so idiotic, that I wouldn't be surprised if one came up about how industrial solvent makes a good cocktail

 

And take a look at how many of those I actually post in. I only post if there's a serious debate, not those "idiotic debates" you're complaining about.

INTR hardly any debates undergo this ending and as such we have friends and family torn apart over many issues.

 

So we should never disagree about anything? We should just let people be ignorant because we don't want to offend them?

 

Probably the greatest which comes to mind is in the 1900s when PM Hughs wanted to introduce conscription to Australia, but it says that we cant have that in the constitution, unless we get attacked. Now this debate should have been thrown out the window straight away but because of WW1 people were scared and as such, we had our country SPLIT in half over the issue, luckily for me, it was narrowly defeated.

 

Terrible example. A major war like WWI is a threat to Australia's security. More importantly, war on the scale of WWI was unheard of. It's perfectly reasonable that people would want to re-evaluate their defense plans with that new knowledge.