That is odd. I think that changed since I posted earlier.

I disagree completely. I spend a lot of time in the academic world, where text is the primary mode of debate. Text gives you the luxury of taking time to consider your response, of accurately referencing the previous points made by others, of visually organizing the flow of ideas to aid understanding ... there are many advantages to text.

One key difference between debate and argument, I think particularly on the internet, is the integrity of the participants. Here's what I mean - if you enter an debate, trying to persuade someone else of the rightness of your idea, then you made an implied agreement that the debate forum is legitimate, and that the best idea will emerge and be believed by both sides.

This requires that each person who enters a debate be willing to leave believing something different than when they entered. I may believe very strongly in the rightness of the pro-life position, but if I cannot even entertain the possibility that I might be wrong, if I am not open to having my mind changed by a more reasonable set of ideas, then I am not entering the debate with integrity. I'm just attempting to use the forum of debate to do propaganda.

People debate differently when they enter as real participants, truly willing to have their mind changed, truly interested in changing someone else's mind on the basis of reason. And that's a good thing.

How about a proper debate?

You know, one with rules and referees?

Set up a forum for the debate, with the refs the rest of the cellar. AGree to rules of the debate (no ad hominem attacks etc) and then stick to them, if one of the participants breaks the rules, the debate is over and that person is declared the loser.

We could even keep stats... take bets etc! LOL, it could be FUN!

ok, sounds good smooth. Good points in all four paragraphs.

Things that make you go "Hmmmm."
 

One often hears people say [words to the effect]:

......"Let's consider, just for the sake of argument, ..."

Yet, I don't recall anyone saying:

......"Let's consider, just for the sake of debate, ..."

Hmmmm.

Monty Python's Flying Circus - Argument Clinic.

I find myself agreeing with Merc, except for his use of the word all. The usefulness of arguments and debates are both measured by the effects on the participants and observers. If substantive information is supplied, even unintentionally, then either method can be seen as a success. Sometimes the information supplied is unintentional, for example "I don't understand his point, but the guy is a nut."


You should follow this link (may be NSFW).

:lol:

Oh, ha-ha. :rolleyes: