Is a debate about winning ?

I thought debate was about discussing subjects , but it seems many well nearly all topics turn into a slanging match where someone wants declare they are the winner

Laughing Out Loud wrote:I thought debate was about discussing subjects , but it seems many well nearly all topics turn into a slanging match where someone wants declare they are the winner

and that is before they have started the debate

I have noticed that also

Everybody does, funny that!

I wonder if Ben should provide us all with pair of boxing gloves when we join

He does, havn't you noticed peoples typing and spelling on here (my own included)>

For me it's about an exchange of ideas and trying to get my point across
I get bored going over the same points though so tend to stop reading the topic!

Laughing Out Loud wrote:I wonder if Ben should provide us all with pair of boxing gloves when we join

He didn't like my idea to distribute these...

eddie wrote:For me it's about an exchange of ideas and trying to get my point across
I get bored going over the same points though so tend to stop reading the topic!

Lets not be shy here

Particularly ones about Palestine and Israel

these maybe safer though

Laughing Out Loud wrote:these maybe safer though

Oh I want one, and I know just who to use it on

victorismyhero wrote:He does, havn't you noticed peoples typing and spelling on here (my own included)>

Bwahahahahaha!!! Nice one.

To answer the OP, I think there are clean wins in debates and (usually) dirty wins in which one side has basically been debunked but won't give up, so it turns into a war of attrition. Ideally when someone was logically proven wrong they'd say "Oh, I based my claims on something I thought was true but I see now that I was mistaken," but that's an extremely difficult thing for so many people to say.

My personal reason for debating, and I imagine there is similar for others, is it is interesting to discover the thought process of people with opposing views. Sometimes that discovery is surprising, sad or understandable. But also its good to have your own views challenged and to consider angles you hadn't before. Debating can solidify your view or alter it (though very rarely change it entirely).

Eilzel wrote:My personal reason for debating, and I imagine there is similar for others, is it is interesting to discover the thought process of people with opposing views. Sometimes that discovery is surprising, sad or understandable. But also its good to have your own views challenged and to consider angles you hadn't before. Debating can solidify your view or alter it (though very rarely change it entirely).

Agreed, I find that being challenged in your views makes you research them more than you would have otherwise, and sometimes you find out you're not as knowledgeable on the subject as you'd thought

sassy wrote:

Laughing Out Loud wrote:these maybe safer though

Oh I want one, and I know just who to use it on

I would like to have used this on IDS face on budget day

Ben_Reilly wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:He does, havn't you noticed peoples typing and spelling on here (my own included)>

Bwahahahahaha!!! Nice one.

To answer the OP, I think there are clean wins in debates and (usually) dirty wins in which one side has basically been debunked but won't give up, so it turns into a war of attrition. Ideally when someone was logically proven wrong they'd say "Oh, I based my claims on something I thought was true but I see now that I was mistaken," but that's an extremely difficult thing for so many people to say.

Hmmm aren't alot of debates based on opinion though? You can't win or lose that?

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Bwahahahahaha!!! Nice one.

To answer the OP, I think there are clean wins in debates and (usually) dirty wins in which one side has basically been debunked but won't give up, so it turns into a war of attrition. Ideally when someone was logically proven wrong they'd say "Oh, I based my claims on something I thought was true but I see now that I was mistaken," but that's an extremely difficult thing for so many people to say.

Hmmm aren't alot  of debates based on opinion though?  You can't win or lose that?

unless the opinion is wrong using your example from another thread

you can hold the opinion that man did not land on the moon the Fact that they did is not open to opinion it`s a matter of fact
holding such an opinion is redundant and stupid

or
you could hold the opinion black people are UN educateable as was the opinion a couple of hundred years ago  the fact that`s is also wrong is an other example

opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective.  The difference between facts and opinion is that facts are verifiable
opinions unless supported by fact are not and as i said subjective

Ok so you were on the moon with them that's why you make that a fact?

For the record I don't disbelieve the moon-landing but I would never ever say it was a fact!!!
I wasn't there

Oh and also, for the record?
I've alwAys wondered why they never successfully made it back...seeing as they've already been???

They stopped going because there was no reason (ie:profit) in doing so.

Eds, by your logic many people claim the world is 6000 years old and dinosaurs weren't real- and we can't argue with that because 'we weren't there'.

You can have an opinion of course, but that opinion can be factually incorrect.

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Bwahahahahaha!!! Nice one.

To answer the OP, I think there are clean wins in debates and (usually) dirty wins in which one side has basically been debunked but won't give up, so it turns into a war of attrition. Ideally when someone was logically proven wrong they'd say "Oh, I based my claims on something I thought was true but I see now that I was mistaken," but that's an extremely difficult thing for so many people to say.

Hmmm aren't alot  of debates based on opinion though?  You can't win or lose that?

I was going to reply with the same thing .

Unless anyone was physically on the moon when they supposedly landed there ,then nobody can say it is fact people can only go on what they see and hear and personally i don't think they went to the moon . I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old i believe dinosaurs existed but i can't say it is fact as i wasn't there to prove it .

eddie wrote:Ok so you were on the moon with them that's why you make that a fact?

For the record I don't disbelieve the moon-landing but I would never ever say it was a fact!!!
I wasn't there

Oh and also, for the record?
I've alwAys wondered why they never successfully made it back...seeing as they've already been???

i don`t need to have been on the moon with them for one i watched it live

And for the record !!
i did not say you disbelieved it i used it as an example
but the difference between you and me is i will say its a fact and can prove its a fact with evidence  and don`t hold to some hair brained opinion conspiracy theory it isn`t or their is any doubt about it

you know the movie Capricorn one has a lot to answers for !!

they are plenty of facts that can be shown that it happened especially today even more so

And they did make it successfully make it back, so what that means i have no idea, There have been six manned U.S. landings between 1969 and 1972

I don't know where all this moon landings were faked stuff comes from but I am sure if they were faked the Russians would have been broadcasting it far and wide

Laughing Out Loud wrote:Unless anyone was physically on the moon when they supposedly landed there ,then nobody can say it is fact people can only go on what they see and hear and personally i don't think they went to the moon . I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old i believe dinosaurs existed but i can't say it is fact as i wasn't there to prove it .

so you don`t believe any thing you did not witness your self ?
sorry that`s just a silly statement
given your statement  how do you know the earth isn`t only 6000 years old how old are you, you wasn`t there when it formed where you ?

i can say with facts that its older than 6000 years
i can prove many things that i did not witness my self but their is know doubt they happened
for example i can prove my uncle died  down on HMFV fifeshire i wasn`t there to see it
i can prove the Americans dropped a nuke twice in Japan i wasn`t there

i can prove nero was the emperor of rome but i wasn`t there ether


honestly some people !!!!

Nems wrote:I don't know where all this moon landings were faked stuff comes from but I am sure if they were faked the Russians would have been broadcasting it far and wide

Exactaly thats one thing

the whole thing started with a few idiots and the movie Capricorn one perhaps the catalyist for the whole conspiricy crap we have to suffer today from people who are too stupid to accept the facts and live in there own fantasy world
personally i have no time for such idiocy because if they believe they didn`t there reasoning ability's and education is drawn it to question

radio waves
microwaves
time
Magnetism
fragrance
very small things like atoms
far away things
sounds
Gravity
Air

there's a LONG list of things that we know exist but cannot see

Apollo Moon Landing Flags Still Standing, Photos Reveal


Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera images of each Apollo site taken at roughly the same orientation but with different sun angles to show the travel of shadows. Combined with knowledge of the Apollo site maps which show where the flag was erected relative to the Lander, long shadows cast by the flags at three sites - Apollo 12, Apollo 16, and Apollo 17 - show that the these flags are still “flying”, held aloft by the poles. There is no indication of a flag shadow in this Apollo 11 image.





An enduring question ever since the manned moon landings of the 1960s has been: Are the flags planted by the astronauts still standing?

Now, lunar scientists say the verdict is in from the latest photos of the moon taken by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC): Most do, in fact, still stand.

"From the LROC images it is now certain that the American flags are still standing and casting shadows at all of the sites, except Apollo 11," LROC principal investigator Mark Robinson wrote in a blog post today (July 27). "Astronaut Buzz Aldrin reported that the flag was blown over by the exhaust from the ascent engine during liftoff of Apollo 11, and it looks like he was correct!"

http://www.space.com/16798-american-flags-moon-apollo-photos.html

Are there any photo's of the Moon Buggies?

Laughing Out Loud wrote:Unless anyone was physically on the moon when they supposedly landed there ,then nobody can say it is fact people can only go on what they see and hear and personally i don't think they went to the moon . I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old i believe dinosaurs existed but i can't say it is fact as i wasn't there to prove it .

Well there are the bones
But whether they belonged to dinosaurs - who can say? None of us have ever seen a live one or even a photograph of one?

I believe in dinosaurs. I like them too actually!

korban dallas wrote:

Laughing Out Loud wrote:Unless anyone was physically on the moon when they supposedly landed there ,then nobody can say it is fact people can only go on what they see and hear and personally i don't think they went to the moon . I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old i believe dinosaurs existed but i can't say it is fact as i wasn't there to prove it .

so you don`t believe any thing you did not witness your self ?
sorry that`s just a silly statement
given your statement  how do you know the earth isn`t only 6000 years old how old are you, you wasn`t there when it formed where you ?

i can say with facts that its older than 6000 years
i can prove many things that i did not witness my self but their is know doubt they happened
for example i can prove my uncle died  down on HMFV fifeshire i wasn`t there to see it
i can prove the Americans dropped a nuke twice in Japan i wasn`t there

i can prove nero was the emperor of rome but i wasn`t there ether


honestly some people !!!!

I believe some things without witnessing them , i just don't believe the moon landing there are many things i don't believe . It's not silly it is just what i believe

You can't convince me if i don't believe it i have made my mind up

eddie wrote:

Laughing Out Loud wrote:Unless anyone was physically on the moon when they supposedly landed there ,then nobody can say it is fact people can only go on what they see and hear and personally i don't think they went to the moon . I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old i believe dinosaurs existed but i can't say it is fact as i wasn't there to prove it .

Well there are the bones
But whether they belonged to dinosaurs - who can say? None of us have ever seen a live one or even a photograph of one?

I believe in dinosaurs. I like them too actually!

Me too

eddie wrote:

Laughing Out Loud wrote:Unless anyone was physically on the moon when they supposedly landed there ,then nobody can say it is fact people can only go on what they see and hear and personally i don't think they went to the moon . I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old i believe dinosaurs existed but i can't say it is fact as i wasn't there to prove it .

Well there are the bones
But whether they belonged to dinosaurs - who can say? None of us have ever seen a live one or even a photograph of one?

I believe in dinosaurs. I like them too actually!

I know you believe in dinosaurs. But your second paragraph is still pushing it. There comes a point when you cannot simply claim an 'opinion' is valid for the sake of it, just because 'you weren't there'.

"The Iraq war never happened."
"Henry VIII never had a wife."
"The Pyramids weren't built by men."
"The Holocaust never happened."

These are all statements about the past which I CANNOT prove but which I KNOW are true. While someone may hold 'opinions' about those things, those opinions do NOT hold the same validity as the views to the contrary.

The Iraq war did happen- is a view 100% more valid than an opinion it didn't.
Henry VIII had multiple wives- is a view 100% more valid than the opinion he was a bachelor.
The pyramids being built by men, somehow- is a view 100% more valid that it being built by something else (aliens?).
The Holocaust happened- is a view 100% more valid than that of the deniers.

It doesn't matter we weren't there, because evidence, records, reason, logic, people's accounts etc all inform us of the truth to a massive extent.

So someone may have 'an opinion' dinosaurs never existed- but that opinion is not valid in the sphere of intelligent discussion and to be less wordy- would be a stupid opinion.

That's exactly my point les! Some stories simply aren't questionable are they? That's why you won't find any (or very very few perhaps) about things like the holocaust or Hitler etc

But stories like 9/11 - there are alternatives by very very believable people. A third of Americans don't believe the official line...are we all crazy??

If you google certain things to see alternatives, well, there simply aren't any, which shows that the ones that do (not all! just some) must be questioned and questionable.

eddie wrote:That's exactly my point les! Some stories simply aren't questionable are they? That's why you won't find any (or very very few perhaps) about things like the holocaust or Hitler etc

But stories like 9/11 - there are alternatives by very very believable people. A third of Americans don't believe the official line...are we all crazy??

If you google certain things to see alternatives, well, there simply aren't any, which shows that the ones that do (not all! just some) must be questioned and questionable.

In terms of conspiracies I understand. But I was addressing the 'you weren't there' train of thought more than anything.

And it is surprising actually just how many Holocaust deniers there are (I was listening to Enya's Lord of the Rings song earlier and came across someone who SOMEHOW (damned if I know) had twisted the comments section into a debate based on her Holocaust denial! Which is also why it was fresh in mind lol).

In a debate with Bill Nye, Ken Ham uses the exact words 'how do you know if you weren't there?' to dismiss dinosaurs, the big bang, evolution, rock formation forming over millions of years and other things. So people do this.

Their 'opinions' are not valid.

I agree it is slightly different with more questionable 'conspiracies', but not all.

I see your point - I do - but it's true to an extent.

I'm just glad you understood my post! I read it back and went

eddie wrote:I see your point - I do - but it's true to an extent.

I'm just glad you understood my post! I read it back and went

Haha, I read more confusing garble on a daily basis to be fair, I've become proficient in reading gibberish

eddie wrote:That's exactly my point les! Some stories simply aren't questionable are they? That's why you won't find any (or very very few perhaps) about things like the holocaust or Hitler etc

But stories like 9/11 - there are alternatives by very very believable people. A third of Americans don't believe the official line...are we all crazy??

If you google certain things to see alternatives, well, there simply aren't any, which shows that the ones that do (not all! just some) must be questioned and questionable.

I believe 9/11 was an inside job so i guess i will wait to be called stupid

I'm often singled out as bit weird so I am not bothered

Your not weird eddie, your just "human"

nicko wrote:Are there any photo's of the Moon Buggies?

see above picture ...so yes!!

eddie wrote:That's exactly my point les! Some stories simply aren't questionable are they? That's why you won't find any (or very very few perhaps) about things like the holocaust or Hitler etc

But stories like 9/11 - there are alternatives by very very believable people. A third of Americans don't believe the official line...are we all crazy??

If you google certain things to see alternatives, well, there simply aren't any, which shows that the ones that do (not all! just some) must be questioned and questionable.

Eddie, there is a whole industry of holocaust denial. I am surprised you arfe not aware of that. It is of course a crime in places like Germany, which of course is wrong, because you are denying freedom of thought and expression. Even if the the claims made are very inaccurate and very much in poor taste. There is also a substancial amount of people who are holocaust deniers. There is also countless claims to Hitler also and if he survived.



Overlooked, however, by nearly every story about the ADL study was an equally disturbing finding that speaks volumes about why so many complicated or controversial political issues like marriage equality, climate change, gun control, health care reform or civil rights are hashed out in hysterical, mindless or irrational ways in the public square.
Half of the people in the world have never heard of the Holocaust, ADL found.
And in the other half – the ones who have at least heard of the Holocaust and the truth that Adolf Hitler ordered the deaths of 6 million Jews – a third of this group simply did not believe the Holocaust happened. To this group, the Holocaust is a lie, a myth, a hoax, a conspiracy by those with a political or ideological agenda.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2014/05/23/did-the-holocaust-exist-scary-number-of-people-say-no-or-not-even-aware


I am interested though if you can think of any alternative things or events that are not questionable that we have today. As my view is that anything can be questionable. If the right atmosphere and influence can place the seed of doubt. That doubt will spread and grow within more people. The key factor to me is how good the influence factor will be and also how susceptable people are to these infleunces.

I mean there are clear facts we know that the earth is millions of years old and yet there is a substancial group who claim 6,000 years even faced with undeniable facts. So I am not sure there is any stories that simply are not questionable.

It would be interesting to see if there is, as would be happy to accept I am wrong and there is some.

I don't know I'd have to look at some point.

Laughing Out Loud wrote:

eddie wrote:That's exactly my point les! Some stories simply aren't questionable are they? That's why you won't find any (or very very few perhaps) about things like the holocaust or Hitler etc

But stories like 9/11 - there are alternatives by very very believable people. A third of Americans don't believe the official line...are we all crazy??

If you google certain things to see alternatives, well, there simply aren't any, which shows that the ones that do (not all! just some) must be questioned and questionable.

I believe 9/11 was an inside job so i guess i will wait to be called stupid

Why ?
it was an outside job ...the planes where outside and flew inside

I've yet to hear a plausible alternate narrative for the 9/11 attacks, they just don't hold up to logic.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I've yet to hear a plausible alternate narrative for the 9/11 attacks, they just don't hold up to logic.

i'll be here for a few more years yet and I will wear you down I tells ya!

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I've yet to hear a plausible alternate narrative for the 9/11 attacks, they just don't hold up to logic.

i'll be here for a few more years yet and I will wear you down I tells ya!

Mind you, I'm not saying people haven't asked interesting questions -- I just don't see a good, cohesive alternate explanation that doesn't raise far more questions.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

i'll be here for a few more years yet and I will wear you down I tells ya!

Mind you, I'm not saying people haven't asked interesting questions -- I just don't see a good, cohesive alternate explanation that doesn't raise far more questions.

So many ideas from the theorists don't add up. Just to name a few:

-They would be so stupid as to actually script the news reports and make an error in announcing Tower 5 going down before it did, unbelievable (literally not figuratively).
-Al Qaeda would accept blame for something they did not do.
-Thousands of people would know about this, yet no one has ever said a word.
-Most experts agree that a passenger plane would be enough to bring down the WTC, but a few odd balls say that's impossible and apparently they know more... (according to the theorists).

It goes on and on and on.

But because the questions exist at all that's enough to dismiss the official narrative. If it was the other way around the theorists would be saying we are stupid to believe it was a government plot and its a conspiracy to prevent Islamophobia in the wake of what was really an Islamist terror attack.

Exactly! Not to mention the paper trails that followed all the hijackers, the security cameras all around the WTC, the monumental task of destroy two enormous skyscrapers and numerous other buildings ... if it was a conspiracy, thousands of people would have to be actively working to pull it off and tens of thousands of others would have to have been paid off or threatened to keep them quiet.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned before is, if the Bush administration had really wanted to carry out a false flag operation to use as a pretext for war, 9/11 would be about the most complicated and improbable thing they could possibly have done. Honestly, it would have been far easier to blow up a few cruise ships entering U.S. harbors or something and blame it on al Qaeda.

The only reasons the 9/11 attacks worked is that Al Qaeda had people willing to fail and die, and that the group leadership accepted that they'd be exposed (or at least blamed). It could have easily gone wrong; they were spectacularly lucky. On the other hand, if you're even willing to imagine hundreds of U.S. government officials plotting together to carry out a bloody false-flag operation against their fellow citizens, you still have to wonder why they'd pick something that would be that complex and and carry so much risk that they'd be exposed.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I've yet to hear a plausible alternate narrative for the 9/11 attacks, they just don't hold up to logic.

occam's razor vs armchair experts who 9 times out of 10 don`t have all the information, expertise or common sense,or basic understanding to Add or say anything of any real worth

budding david ike`s types as i call them

korban dallas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I've yet to hear a plausible alternate narrative for the 9/11 attacks, they just don't hold up to logic.

occam's razor vs armchair experts who 9 times out of 10 don`t have all the information, expertise or common sense,or basic understanding  to Add or say anything  of any real worth

budding david ike`s types as i call them

Blasphemer! (get it, because he said he's Jesus)