The merits of debating.

[showler]

Debating only works on the reasonable. The entrenched, due to beliefs/prejudices or profit/power, won't be swayed by debate.

 

Things change when their power/privilege becomes more threatened by not changing then by changing.

 

Boycotts affect profits. Voting affects power. Debating gets enough people on your side to take action. But things rarely change from debate alone.

[JediMasterTallyn]

Debating only works on the reasonable. The entrenched, due to beliefs/prejudices or profit/power, won't be swayed by debate.

 

Things change when their power/privilege becomes more threatened by not changing then by changing.

 

Boycotts affect profits. Voting affects power. Debating gets enough people on your side to take action. But things rarely change from debate alone.

 

You are correct, but the highlighted sentence, That is what I am talking about. That is how debating makes change.

 

And as for the unreasonable......

 

once again.....

 

You have to care enough to debate a tree stump.

[NukeColaZero]

People use terms like debate, discussion, argument interchangeably. Confusion is only natural.

 

https://www.uopeople.edu/blog/debate-and-discussion/

 

In the light of these definitions the term ''discussion'' suitable for what we should be doing.

[JediMasterTallyn]

debate, discussion, argument, temper tantrums,

 

To MA toe TO ma TOE

 

Alot of times I feel like Robin and the mods be like:

 

 

https://youtu.be/dMJUWqbJ3Jg?si=xbNZAwpZU4N2m8er

[SulkTTV]

On 10/26/2023 at 9:48 AM, Nephiah said:

Debating can be useful when applied properly. The one exception is when it comes to issues such as human rights, since the ones who stand against those things are always arguing in bad faith 100% of the time.

But as showler said, this forum has never really been a true debate forum as it is. It's usually just pointless and, hopefully, lighthearted bickering. :laugh:

Just saying "Human rights" is intentionally vague for a good reason to woke actors.

 

The left uses the buzz word "Human Rights" as much as they can on any subject they advocate for as a way to bludgeon opposition viewpoints as being immoral and try to pseudo win the debate not by having the winning argument but why bullying.

 

The democrats are the party of hate and division after all. 

[JediMasterTallyn]

Subtle tip if you want to actually debate try and avoid name calling and finger pointing, and I love how your statement implies that the other side is any better.

A much better  way of saying  what  you wanted  to say is:

"Main  stream media and its cult-like followers do not want us to stop being divided or hating each other, it would allow us to focus on the crap they keep pulling on a constant basis. Which is why they are so fast to  throw the 'human rights' label at everything. It makes the TLDR folks side with them automatically, and makes anyone opposed look terrible, it is a cheap trick and the worst part of that trick is that it works 100% of the time without fail." 

Now as to your this side bad that side good moment there, well that is just B.S.

I paraphrase the movie Armageddon every time some one does this:

Democratic Politician, Republican Politician; ALL OLD RICH WHITE GUY!!! well mostly anyway. But seriously, most of the  "leaders" of each  party were alive and old enough to have served in the Korean War. (That makes the 18-25 in the 1950's btw) And now you want me to believe that a person that was raised to adulthood BEFORE television was in every home before civil rights and before desegregation. understands and gets the intricacies of the gender debate and/or any other social issue we are wading through at this point in history.

Brah I graduated in the 1990's and I BARELY  understand half of it so yeah pull the other one it has bells.

To be frank; I do not think these rich highly educated career** politicians understand anything other that campaign law, so that  they can still accept "donations" to the  cause; and marketing, so they can bullshit the media and youth  of today into believing that they give a damn about anything but power and money.

To  be honest I have not trusted and/or voted along party lines..... well, ever.

And I have been voting since around Bill Clinton's second term.

I have three rules, that I try to follow each time I step into the voting booth.

1.I almost never vote major party if a third or fourth option is available and palatable.

2. After their second term unless what they  are running against is just terrible I almost never vote for that incumbent (Alzheimer's vs Trump, yikes!! can we PLEASE get a 3rd option?????)

3. NEVER! EVER! Trust ANYTHING mainstream media or adjacent, says about  either candidate, the internet exist research and find out for sure on your own and take NO ONE'S word for it. Be able to cite several sources from all sides of a debate the more the better.

Next time try putting less hate-mongering in your statement and go for more reason. You will get a much  better response.

** Career Politicians in my opinion are the problem and the problem can be summed up thusly:

If they fix an issue what will they have to campaign on? therefore why fix anything? Hence why I refuse to vote for the incumbent more than once unless It just cannot be  helped.

{P.S. If you think this problem is  limited to the U.S. government you are even more delusional than most of Hollywood. Seek help.}

[ZenderRailen]

Debate can only be achieved between two good faith actors within reasonable understanding of reality around them.

If this isn't the case you have an argument, not a debate.

[ScytheBearer]

On 2/19/2024 at 11:53 AM, SulkTTV said:

Just saying "Human rights" is intentionally vague for a good reason to woke actors.

 

The left uses the buzz word "Human Rights" as much as they can on any subject they advocate for as a way to bludgeon opposition viewpoints as being immoral and try to pseudo win the debate not by having the winning argument but why bullying.

 

The democrats are the party of hate and division after all. 

 

I am a "leftist woke liberal progressive socialist" (among other appellations which are even less flattering).   "Human Rights" as used my me and my peers is not some "intentionally vague" idea or a veiled reference written in smoke and vapor.  "Human Rights" refers to a very specific set or rights which are clearly delineated in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  We do not use "human rights" to "bludgeon opposition viewpoints as being immoral", but to point out how behaviors, policies and practices are in contradiction of these basic rights.

Edited February 22 by ScytheBearer

[Nephiah]

On 2/19/2024 at 7:53 PM, SulkTTV said:

Just saying "Human rights" is intentionally vague for a good reason to woke actors.

 

The left uses the buzz word "Human Rights" as much as they can on any subject they advocate for as a way to bludgeon opposition viewpoints as being immoral and try to pseudo win the debate not by having the winning argument but why bullying.

 

The democrats are the party of hate and division after all. 

I suggest taking a break from the internet. Clearly whatever grifters you subscribe to have given you a serious case of brainworms.