The Art Of Intelligent Debate

1. 77

   frogdroppingposted 13 years ago

   The hub - Inside The Mind Of A Socialist is an excellent example of what intelligent debate should be.
   
   You couldn't get a more opposing stance than that between a socialist and a capitalist - and yet here these two guys are, neither giving any real ground, both displaying exactly what's missing from this forum - good manners and grace.
   
   For those that don't get what that means, I suggest you stop by and read the comments.

   replyreport
   1. 51

      phoenixlocksmithsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I don't see any comments here.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Frog:
      Debate has several connotations.
      When I consider the word "debate," I think of winning it.
      An aspect of debating is "argument." To win an argument one must present irrefutable fact.
      Where any aspect of religion is concerned, why would anyone desire to "debate" it when ABSOLUTLEY no "proofs" can be offered.
      To debate religion would be absurd. Only a fool would do it.
      Now, to offer religious thought/opinions for consideration,   intellectual points can be made. Decisions would be made based, not on fact, but on logic and reason.
      Religion is the antithesis of intelligence.
      Intelligent conversation with one who is imbued with religious doctrine, isn't possible.
      Qwark

      replyreport
2. 63

   Lisa HWposted 13 years ago

   I looked at it (even though I I know the issues with the forums versus "intelligent debate").  I agree.  I love debate (or plain old discussions), but sometimes a lot of other people on the forums don't seem too interested in "big discussions" (because different people want different stuff on forums).  Sometimes there'll be a couple of people who enjoy civil debate - and then the whole business goes downhill when other people get involved.    THEN, if someone (like me) posts what he thinks may be a side of a debate, if nobody else is interested it just looks like a giant monologue.  Then, though, there's the one where one person says he's a Liberal or Conservative, and a bunch of other people start attacking and dragging in a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with ideas.    But - yes - good manners and grace do keep a discussion to the issues and keep it from being blurred by extra stuff.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Lisa - Excellent point here.  It gets very frustrating in the forums for the reasons you pointed out.  When someone posts a particularly insulting or non-factual comment, I often point out the flaw in their 'argument'.  It's also important to begin a comment with the name of the person you are responding to otherwise comments just get lost.  No one knows who should respond to what.  Sometimes there is just an ongoing jib and jab back and forth between two people so it's obvious, but usually not.
      
      It's also important to remain neutral in the writing.  Use of the word 'I' suggests a biased stance and slants away from fact.  Unless, of course, the comment is based on a personal experience.  I find that eliminating the word 'I' gives the comment a less threatening or accusatory tone.

      replyreport
      1. 63

         Lisa HWposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         counterpopcafe, there may be some exceptions to that note about using "I".  Sometimes, maybe, it can help if people use it in the phrase, "I think.." before whatever it is they say.  (I just had to stop myself from starting this post with "I think.." because I knew what I was going to say.  Using "I think" kind of acknowledges that we know it's what we think - and not necessarily 100% correct, sure, and without question. 
         
         The opposite of "I think" is "You think", and just "you" sometimes..  (I "love" "you think" - and I hope the sarcasm on that "love" shows here.)  The second someone resorts to "you think" you know that person isn't a debater. S/he is someone who doesn't debate/argue with reason.  Here's an example of "you think".  Person A:  The sky is blue.  Person B:  "You think the noticing the blue sky means you don't have to worry about the starving people of the world."
         
         Person A:  I don't like that Obama ________(fill in the blank)".  Person B:  "You want Bush back in the White House  (followed by a big litany about everything Person B hates about Bush and "The Republicans").
         
         Here's a "good" one:  Person A:  I don't think the health-care bill should go through as it is."  Person B:  "You want people to have no health-care."  (???? - when, exactly, did Person A say THAT?)
         
         An example of better debating might be, "I understand that you have concerns about x in the health-care bill, but I'd rather have x than y."
         
         I think people who debate/argue need to approach it as if they were a judge at a court hearing:  Base their input only on what has been presented, request clarification, allow "evidence", even allow some anecdotal evidence, not allow stuff that isn't backed up somehow, etc. etc.  Too many people approach something like online debates as if they're a football game instead - put on the helmets and cleats, puff themselves up as big as they can, come in "psyched up" and ready to fight, and have a "mow 'em down" mentality.

         replyreport
3. 59

   BobbiRantposted 13 years ago

   I think it is great when people can disagree politely.  I don't get mad even if someone on my hubs disagrees.  They have a right to their opinions, same as me.  Good point here.

   replyreport
4. 64

   Greek Oneposted 13 years ago

   I'm sorry, I have to disagree....
   
   Any debate in which the participants do not refer to the loose sexual practices of their opponent's mother, is simply not entertaining.

   replyreport
   1. 63

      Lisa HWposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Greek One,      (Don't forget if that fails there's always the somewhat outdated approach, although a fine one, of raising the matter of the opponent's mother's affinity for military footwear.)

      replyreport
5. 77

   frogdroppingposted 13 years ago

   lol Geek One ... shurrup ye
   
   The thing is, on that particular hub, no one has actually reached an agreement - they're still battling away with wits, measured answers and you know ... supporting their respective opinions. Class.

   replyreport
   1. 64

      Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      give it time... soon enough, someone will say..
      
      "Oh yeah!?!?!.. we'll your mom @#%@^^ Lenin and the entire Red Army!!!"

      replyreport
      1. 77

         frogdroppingposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         " ... yeah but at least my mom got paid for it. Ha! What did your mom get eh - EH? A dose of the Doc's best advice and a week flat on her back, that's what. MY Mom's capitalism beats your mom's socialism any @#%@^^ day!!"

         replyreport
6. 69

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

   The Art of Intelligent Debate? You mean ego trip, right?
   
   I'm kidding. I'm always interested in seeing an intelligent debate, however, if both had intelligence then they would be able to see the other's point of view and find common ground.
   
   The problem lies in the ego and arrogance of the one who is choosing to be ignorant. When one cannot see past oneself, no common ground can be found.
   
   Capitalism versus Socialism? Both are ideologies, which when properly applied into society, then can work together. There plenty of things that would need to be ironed out for that to work. But, middle ground can be achieved.

   replyreport
7. 60

   William R. Wilsonposted 13 years ago

   Funny, because this Partisan Patriot guy was pretty foul to me about a year ago when I posted a comment on one of his hubs.  The outpouring of hate from him and his buddies was so astounding I took a screenshot.
   
   But maybe he's changed his ways?

   replyreport
   1. 77

      frogdroppingposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      William - can't help you with that one. I don't know what either of you said but it's sooooo easy to say something underhand, loose, a misfire - and get a kick in the seat of the pants. Maybe you unknowingly triggered something? Or maybe you did absolutely nothing and he just gave both barrels, IDK. Ask him?
      
      But you can't argue with what's going on with that and the other hub (consequently written). Both oppose the other, neither will give an inch. But - it's the clean, sharp focus I admire. They have yet to get off topic and start mud slinging.

      replyreport
8. 70

   waynetposted 13 years ago

   Yes intelligent debate is cool!
   
   But also mindless debate is good too! lol! like how do I cook a sausage using a magnifying glass? please debate!

   replyreport
9. 59

   Neil Sperlingposted 13 years ago

   Intelligent debate is fun - all my life I have been practicing to become a Master Debater.

   replyreport
10. 73

    Arthur Fontesposted 13 years ago

    Intelligent discourse?  I miss it.

    replyreport
11. 77

    frogdroppingposted 13 years ago

    qwark:
    I get it But I tend not to analyze more than necessary. You are very like my Simões. I let him do that. I'd imagine you and he would get along fine. Until such a time you disagreed upon something.
    As for your second but last sentence - you know exactly who won't agree with one huh?

    replyreport