What is the point of a debate?

That’s it. Just that question:

What is the point of a debate?

eddie wrote:That’s it. Just that question:

What is the point of a debate?  

Debates clarify thinking.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:That’s it. Just that question:

What is the point of a debate?  

Debates clarify thinking.

Well, they should, but they don’t really, do they?

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Debates clarify thinking.

Well, they should, but they don’t really, do they?

They do if done right. A lot of what we have here is just noise and trolling.

Can you explain what noise and trolling is, in your opinion? Who does this, and why?

eddie wrote:Can you explain what noise and trolling is, in your opinion? Who does this, and why?

Trolling is just playing 'gotcha'. Doesn't contribute to the debate.

Noise is somebody who doesn't follow logic, has no substantiation for what he is saying, or just gets lost in the debate.

Okay I get what you’re saying.

Can I ask you some questions that will require a yes or no answer?

Do I come across like that? If I do, I will do my fucking best to try not to.

Do you think that you come across like that? Be honest

Do you think that most posters come across like that?

eddie wrote:Okay I get what you’re saying.

Can I ask you some questions that will require a yes or no answer?

Do I come across like that? If I do, I will do my fucking best to try not to.

No.

eds wrote:Do you think that you come across like that? Be honest

Neither one.

eds wrote:Do you think that most posters come across like that?

No.

The exchange of ideas and opinions is all without the need for there being a winner and a loser, just different thoughts

gelico wrote:

The exchange of ideas and opinions is all without the need for there being a winner and a loser, just different thoughts

+1

eddie wrote:Okay I get what you’re saying.

Can I ask you some questions that will require a yes or no answer?

Do I come across like that? If I do, I will do my fucking best to try not to.

Do you think that you come across like that? Be honest

Do you think that most posters come across like that?

no,

you are more logical than i am. i am more emotional '' i don't know why i feel that, i just do'' kind of thing

my beanie is actually much more like you than she is me

tell me straight

do i seem aggressive?

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:

The exchange of ideas and opinions is all without the need for there being a winner and a loser, just different thoughts

+1

thanks

many threads i can offer nothing (climate change/glaciers) for example. i know nothing and i don't know if other people just pretend that scientific data is easy to interpret but really being completely foxed or whether i am just genuinely thick with that sort of thing but it completely baffles me

i still like to read different points of view though, even if i don't feel like joining in

gelico wrote:

eddie wrote:Okay I get what you’re saying.

Can I ask you some questions that will require a yes or no answer?

Do I come across like that? If I do, I will do my fucking best to try not to.

Do you think that you come across like that? Be honest

Do you think that most posters come across like that?

no,

you are more logical than i am.  i am more emotional  '' i don't know why i feel that, i just do'' kind of thing

my beanie is actually much more like you than she is me

tell me straight

do i seem aggressive?

i'm not sure that seeming aggressive is such a bad thing anyway. it sounds bad but i dont think i really mind if i come across as aggressive. first of all i didn't like it and thought, no i'm not but maybe i am, and i don't seem to care now

gelico wrote:

gelico wrote:

no,

you are more logical than i am.  i am more emotional  '' i don't know why i feel that, i just do'' kind of thing

my beanie is actually much more like you than she is me

tell me straight

do i seem aggressive?

i'm not sure that seeming aggressive is such a bad thing anyway.  it sounds bad but i dont think i really mind if i come across as aggressive. first of all i didn't like it and thought, no i'm not but maybe i am, and i don't seem to care now

You seem to be coming across as more humane these days.  That can't be bad.

Anyway, I'm not here to judge. You be yourself.

gelico wrote:

eddie wrote:Okay I get what you’re saying.

Can I ask you some questions that will require a yes or no answer?

Do I come across like that? If I do, I will do my fucking best to try not to.

Do you think that you come across like that? Be honest

Do you think that most posters come across like that?

no,

you are more logical than i am.  i am more emotional  '' i don't know why i feel that, i just do'' kind of thing

my beanie is actually much more like you than she is me

tell me straight

do i seem aggressive?

Not to me you don’t. You are precise and to the point which tells me you know exactly what you’re thinking when you reply - that you’re telling your truth.
It’s only people who waffle and change their minds or who try to change tactics on you, who are not necessarily telling their truth.

I like debates where people actually listen to the other side without having a preconception that the opponent is talking shite because if you start out with the premise that you’re “right” then a true debate cannot happen.

eddie wrote:I like debates where people actually listen to the other side without having a preconception that the opponent is talking shite because if you start out with the premise that you’re “right” then a true debate cannot happen.

One of the functions of honest debates is to educate people on reasoning. You use words and logic to bring about certain conclusions. Unfortunately, it is true that some people want none of that.

Those people have an inner fear that they might be bested. So they turn the process into an alternative game which (they feel) makes them look better: 1) the game of ‘gotcha’; and 2) losing the train of thought to ‘random thinking’. The first is a tool for the weak of mind. The second is failure to follow the linear logic of a point.

There is a third purpose, which is rarely used around here because it takes as much brainpower as linear reasoning. That is to reframe and refashion a question. But first you have to understand the point of the original question, and call up surrounding factors with which to reframe it. Then you've got something.

I’m going to answer you tomorrow. When I have the right words in the right order.
There’s something in what you said but there’s also something more.

Tomorrow.

eddie wrote:

gelico wrote:

no,

you are more logical than i am.  i am more emotional  '' i don't know why i feel that, i just do'' kind of thing

my beanie is actually much more like you than she is me

tell me straight

do i seem aggressive?

Not to me you don’t.

well, thanks,

although i have to say my first initial mental reaction to raggs was,,,,
#oy, don't start calling me aggressive or i'll knock your fucking head off#

so you could be wrong

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:I like debates where people actually listen to the other side without having a preconception that the opponent is talking shite because if you start out with the premise that you’re “right” then a true debate cannot happen.

One of the functions of honest debates is to educate people on reasoning.  You use words and logic to bring about certain conclusions.  Unfortunately, it is true that some people want none of that.

Those people have an inner fear that they might be bested.  So they turn the process into an alternative game which (they feel) makes them look better: 1) the game of ‘gotcha’; and 2) losing the train of thought to ‘random thinking’.  The first is a tool for the weak of mind.  The second is failure to follow the linear logic of a point.

There is a third purpose, which is rarely used around here because it takes as much brainpower as linear reasoning.  That is to reframe and refashion a question.  But first you have to understand the point of the original question, and call up surrounding factors with which to reframe it.  Then you've got something.

interesting response, quill

i have traits of that. it could well be that something someone says within the debate will trigger a mental link to something else, maybe along the same lines but perhaps becoming more general as you say;

but then again, doing that may well bring you at some time (albeit seemingly accidentally) to purpose 3 and you end up reframing and refashioning the question anyway

am i following you right?

gelico wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

One of the functions of honest debates is to educate people on reasoning.  You use words and logic to bring about certain conclusions.  Unfortunately, it is true that some people want none of that.

Those people have an inner fear that they might be bested.  So they turn the process into an alternative game which (they feel) makes them look better: 1) the game of ‘gotcha’; and 2) losing the train of thought to ‘random thinking’.  The first is a tool for the weak of mind.  The second is failure to follow the linear logic of a point.

There is a third purpose, which is rarely used around here because it takes as much brainpower as linear reasoning.  That is to reframe and refashion a question.  But first you have to understand the point of the original question, and call up surrounding factors with which to reframe it.  Then you've got something.

interesting response, quill

i have traits of that.  it could well be that something someone says within the debate will trigger a mental link to something else, maybe along the same lines but perhaps becoming more general as you say;

but then again, doing that may well bring you at some time (albeit seemingly accidentally) to purpose 3 and you end up reframing and refashioning the question anyway

am i following you right?

Absolutely.  I broke the question into three parts, and while I described each, perhaps I wasn't critical enough.

(1) Of the three, the 'gotcha' component, or trolling, is the most disingenuous, as it completely abandons the partnership of debate (yes, one has a partnership with one's interlocutor in an honest debate).

(2)  Getting lost in the logical stream of a subject is not so malevolent, as it is a lack of discipline.  It's really a form of attention deficit...like a child gets distracted by passing views while riding in a car.  The use of examples, or metaphors, or other linguistic devices, are the detractors that cause an undisciplined reader's mind to wander.  That's why I speak of 'logical streams' of a topic, or 'linear' reasoning: it's staying on the straight path.

(3)  The third component is actually true, insightful debate.  To reframe a question is actually to consider what is theretofore unnoticed or unacknowledged.  Allow me to reprise with an example:

We often speak of capitalism, and in associated images of capitalism.  We say: it's a natural system, or a self-leveling system, like water finding its own level.  It depends on competition, and all players compete by paring back their own burdens and costs--we call it efficiency--for the benefit of all.  That is the original frame.

But then someone comes along and reframes the issue: Hey, they don't pare back and make things more efficient.  Rather, they knock each other off the wall, and thereby create an increasing monopoly.  So far from efficiency, it is the ultimate unstable, inefficient system.

That person is messing with the nice tuning of the pro-capitalist framework.  But he’s replacing it with a better framing.  He’s saying, reconsider the fundamental component of competition (ie, what they actually do), and you get a far different picture.

To draw the point to a close: that really is improving the debate.  That reframes the question, to introduce new and important components for consideration.

I see where you’re coming from and it’s a pattern I’ve noticed.

I also see that often, people just actually take something you say and turn it into something else entirely. Another thing I’ve noticed is that sometimes people are just waiting for you to finish speaking so that they can reply, without actually replying to what you just said.

eddie wrote:Can you explain what noise and trolling is, in your opinion? Who does this, and why?

I define trolling (and this may be useful to some here, since I've got the hammer and the attack bees) as posting with the sole intention of pissing off other members.

It is subjective, but I think most people are able to step back and look at a statement or post, and judge as to whether the only reason someone said it was to piss somebody else off.

If there was more than one reason, and one of them was to piss somebody off but the others were to make people think, or challenge another statement, I don't consider that trolling.

Ben wrote:I define trolling (and this may be useful to some here, since I've got the hammer and the attack bees) as posting with the sole intention of pissing off other members.

As it was explained to me, Trolling is a fishing term. In a slow moving boat, you toss in your line and troll for fish. Basically, you are leading the fish on, and when s/he bites, you yank.

The best synonym I can think of is 'gotcha'...a game that adversaries in politics play. Your enemy 'trolls' you into making a mistake, and then he yanks...gotcha!

The term may have been expanded since I learned it, but it has to be a tactic. Lots of things can piss you off, but the way the game is played, the fish is encouraged to take the bait...then s/he is reeled in.

The point of a debate is like a door. Do not enter if you have only one view.

Then it is not a debate. It’s just two people, trying to be right.

If you're not willing and open to learn something in a debate, it's pointless to engage in one.

eddie wrote:The point of a debate is like a door. Do not enter if you have only one view.

Then it is not a debate. It’s just two people, trying to be right.

no it's like two equally weighted people on opposite ends of a fairground swing/see-saw

a bit of effort from both and you're both flying high, feeling the thrill of being dragged one way then the other and rising up and delving down

at some point you both get bored and it hasn't actually gone anywhere as such but it's still been most enjoyable

it's not a fucking door

what about revolving doors

what about them what say push when they mean pull

what about if two blokes try to get through the same door at the same time,,,,that could be awkward

what about them what suddenly open without warning when all you do is lean on it slightly

Okay Gels we get it, you are a door-hater.

Here is my worth on this, as nobody has actually truely answered this honestly

The point of debate is too challenge a held or or conceived idea/belief or position

Another point of debate is to fight for an individuals position

Another point to debate is to learn about how others feel on issues

Another point to debate is also a matter of life and death. As happens in a court of law

The real point of debate is to open up invisble barriers. That deny us all from listening to each other. As when we center on a view to be right. Never taking a view we could be wrong. We have closed ourselves off from the other persons position. No matter how outlanish their position is. If we take time to listen and block out our own bias within this debate. We may find that on some points we all find common ground and agreement on.

Its how society has progressed. At many times in history there has always been people to stiffle progression and more so than ever. Intelligent debate with rational reason and evidence. Has been the key to changing and progressing society. Science has forever helped backed such debates.

So why is it important to debate?

because it has helped shape and progress soceity. When for many centuries many people simple never had a choice to do so

The key to a good debate is to realise that you think you’re right and so does the other person so there’s not always an outcome where both parties agree.

It’s okay to agree to differ. If a person gets angry in a debate then I tend to think they assume they’re right and aren’t happy you’re not agreeing with them.

As for insults during a debate, forget it. I’m gone once that happens.

I would say that the point of a *good* debate is to achieve something -- either to have someone show you something you didn't know before, or for them to help you refine your views.

Having your views challenged is great. It helps you decide whether you really believe them, and even if you come out still believing them, you probably sharpened them in the process of defending them.

But so many of the debates here are frankly not debates at all, but just fights and digs. I don't know why some people on here waste so much time doing that.

eddie wrote:The key to a good debate is to realise that you think you’re right and so does the other person so there’s not always an outcome where both parties agree.

It’s okay to agree to differ. If a person gets angry in a debate then I tend to think they assume they’re right and aren’t happy you’re not agreeing with them.

As for insults during a debate, forget it. I’m gone once that happens.

Thinking each are rights creates boundaries from the start

That creates a failed and conflicting debate

All the abpove though is not about the point of debate, but how people should act within debate

Ben Reilly wrote:I would say that the point of a *good* debate is to achieve something -- either to have someone show you something you didn't know before, or for them to help you refine your views.

Having your views challenged is great. It helps you decide whether you really believe them, and even if you come out still believing them, you probably sharpened them in the process of defending them.

But so many of the debates here are frankly not debates at all, but just fights and digs. I don't know why some people on here waste so much time doing that.

You and Eddie fight and argue right?

Some people would call that a waste

i would call that trying to psh buttons and at thew same time learn

I would also call that combating insecurities you have with others but able to release and speak freely with each other.

In other words your barriers fall down when love enters the equation

You both love debate and may fight like cats and dogs in debate

Which I guess because neither of you have allowed yourselves to speak freely with someone who truely care for and is on the same page with you emotionally

The barriers between you have been broken with love. It makes it that much easier to listen to each other

Is it not sad that its generally love in how people mostly compremise?

Eddie and I fight and argue sometimes -- and it's almost always a huge waste. Hurt feelings, misunderstandings, etc.

Civil debate is constructive, while fighting is destructive.

Ben Reilly wrote:Eddie and I fight and argue sometimes -- and it's almost always a huge waste. Hurt feelings, misunderstandings, etc.

Civil debate is constructive, while fighting is destructive.

Wrong

How is it destructive when you are together?

What do you both do afterwards?

It shows you both do listen and are simple stubborn

You both like to be right

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Eddie and I fight and argue sometimes -- and it's almost always a huge waste. Hurt feelings, misunderstandings, etc.

Civil debate is constructive, while fighting is destructive.

Wrong

How is it destructive when you are together?

What do you both do afterwards?

It shows you both do listen and are simple stubborn

You both like to be right

Yeah, that's true -- our love is strong, so we can and do grow. It's also true that we're both pretty stubborn people, which can create friction.

But boy does it suck in the moment. We can literally be fighting, say to one another "I don't want to fight," and then go on fighting!

Also, our situation isn't exactly normal. We still aren't guaranteed that if we're both willing, we can live together, so we tend to worry more about wasting our time together than I imagine most couples do.

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Eddie and I fight and argue sometimes -- and it's almost always a huge waste. Hurt feelings, misunderstandings, etc.

Civil debate is constructive, while fighting is destructive.

Wrong

How is it destructive when you are together?

What do you both do afterwards?

It shows you both do listen and are simple stubborn

You both like to be right

Erm no. I don’t have a need to be right. I’m not sure what “right” is when exchanging opinions.
They’re just opinions.

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Wrong

How is it destructive when you are together?

What do you both do afterwards?

It shows you both do listen and are simple stubborn

You both like to be right

Yeah, that's true -- our love is strong, so we can and do grow. It's also true that we're both pretty stubborn people, which can create friction.

But boy does it suck in the moment. We can literally be fighting, say to one another "I don't want to fight," and then go on fighting!

Also, our situation isn't exactly normal. We still aren't guaranteed that if we're both willing, we can live together, so we tend to worry more about wasting our time together than I imagine most couples do.

I would suggest you are play out your frustrations and anger on those denying you being here and not on each other
The very fact that you love each other you end up fighting even more even though you enjoy the confrontation between each other. Further creates tension

Hence its not a case of you even being angry or annoyed at each other. Its the fear of seperation that fuels this anger. That ends up having you at times be at swords with each other. Its the frustration and true love that is driving this. I am also sure you both argue over roles. No doubt you hold some stupid male pride mate? The more you centre on thes momentary frustrations. The more you will alow them to manifest and create problems between you. Take one problem at a time and resolve them one step at a time.

I think you both worry too much. Your love only comes about once in a life time. So embrace it and stop wasting yout time being frustrated and worrying. Over fears that have not come to pass. Spend everyday as if it was your last

eddie wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Wrong

How is it destructive when you are together?

What do you both do afterwards?

It shows you both do listen and are simple stubborn

You both like to be right

Erm no. I don’t have a need to be right. I’m not sure what “right” is when exchanging opinions.
They’re just opinions.  

Point went over your head

phildidge wrote:

eddie wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Wrong

How is it destructive when you are together?

What do you both do afterwards?

It shows you both do listen and are simple stubborn

You both like to be right

Erm no. I don’t have a need to be right. I’m not sure what “right” is when exchanging opinions.
They’re just opinions.  

Point went over your head

Yeah I think it did. You’re right. I was picking on one minor thing. I do stand corrected.

eddie wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Point went over your head

Yeah I think it did. You’re right. I was picking on one minor thing. I do stand corrected.

No worries eddie, sorry in the middle of a debate where someone I respected is claiming immigration is wrong based off some black people in a fight. Yep I am lost for words also. As they are claiming this is down to immigration