Debate or argument?
 

I would propose to discuss the relative merits of a debate versus an argument.

Whether it's climate change, religion, politics, guns, or ice cream, if your point is to make a point, you should be debating.

If you're trying to educate others, you should be debating.

If your goal is the manufacture and dissemination of misinformation, you should be debating.

If you want to show how smart you are, you should be debating.

If your desire is to humiliate, subjugate or dominate others, or raise your own blood pressure, or increase the level of tension and dissatisfaction in the Cellar - or in the world; if you want to show how ignorant you are, or generally cast yourself in a bad light - then you should be arguing.

In the Cellar - as in the world - I see too much arguing and not enough debating.

What would you like to see?

Arguments are more entertaining, though.

wolf - how did you respond before I finished the poll?

I am one with the Force.

don't like either

Oh good. I was afraid that you were the ghost in the machine.

I voted more debate and less argument but sometimes those with passionate natures cannot help themselves... :rolleyes:

I don't like either, but I don't want to sound like, I don't like it, because I'm above all of that. It just doesn't interest me. It's just not my bag. I like the fluff. I like reading something that makes me smile. Turning on the computer to find a fight is like a foreign language to me. I don't understand why, but lots of people enjoy debate, I don't.

I'd like to see Brianna naked. :)

You'll get in this regard I think not either debate nor argument (except perhaps from she herself).

Agreed, I would rather participate in a debate than an argument; but, arguments are engaging as spectator sport. This creates a dilemma for someone who's just here for the entertainment. I suppose I'll have to become a referee ... :sniff:

Either, it is all constructive on some level.

More debate. Too often on here (and everywhere really) if you challenge a point that someone makes they take it as a personal attack.

OK. But you first. :)

The fine art of debating is lost in text form. Without hearing a persons tone of voice it may seem like an argument when really it is debating.

I think when it get's down to put downs and name calling then one can be sure it's an argument.

The only person I argued with was my x boyfriend who insisted it was not ok for me to feel upset when he hung up on me twice.
Now that became an argument!

Oh yeah? You're just saying that because you don't know nuthin' nohow, ya limey.

Bravo, sky. You are absolutely right.

I'd like to see less of the demeaning tone, insults, and name calling. I know - I go there, I will return fire with gusto.

I think some arguing here and there adds a little excitement, and doesn't really increase overall tension levels; not all the time, anyway. It works when people have the ability to argue somewhat creatively, and maybe sling a few insults; something more intelligent and funny than "stupid," or "bitch," or "fag."

But when someone just pops out with crass comments or insults, for no good reason other than to stir shit up, it's not even arguing...more like Tourette's of the keyboard. All it does is create an oppressive atmosphere.

I'd like to see more people admitting that the debate has changed their opinion. I think the main weakness today lies in people feeling that changing an opinion is backing down and a weakness. (Bush, anyone?) Pig-headedness rules. I think it shows more strength of character to show that you have read and considered othe people's opinions and reconsidered your own. But then I'm a loser ;)

I would rather someone admit when they were wrong.

I usually don't say when someone changes my opinion so I don't excpect them to do the same.

I agree with this, and I agree with Weird Harold. It mystifies me that people find insults amusing, and confrontation entertaining.

I do not find them so.

Get in line, buster. :)

There is a difference between constructive and therapeutic. Debate is often constructive for all parties concerned (opposing and spectator) as it forces reexamination that may either change; or, reinforce opinion. Argument often does not have this effect because it need not revolve around the topic at hand (e.g. it may be a personality conflict). Argument can be cathartic and even therapeutic; but, all too often for only one of the parties involved. Those who believe "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger." might see argument as having a constructive purpose. In reality; however, what doesn't kill a person might cripple them for life.

When there is argument just for the sake of argument and it becomes a matter of one-upmanship (something of a sport), sometimes there are ingenious plays. It can be very entertaining. Arguments in which the parties are merely venting are not typically entertaining even though they may serve some useful purpose (see above).

I refuse to respond to another $#%#$ poll!


<j/k>;)

What would be the point?
Debate.
Arguments achieve nothing, they are for people who cannot control themselves and cannot learn from others.

bump

I found it interesting that rob had the last post in this thread - perhaps I should have left it that way.

Agreed. As I've typed before...attack the post, not the poster.

I've only just noticed that Rk's user account doesn't exist anymore. Thought he'd just vanished. Did he delete his account?

[joke]Classic nerd comeback.[/joke]

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: