Debating

[DGFone]

Discuss how you think debates should be handled. This is basically my attempt to give Woeler a good ol' fashioned thrashing and hopefully get him to start giving up answers. But if you want to add your own "I like debates to be like this ____", then feel free to do so.

Originated from this: viewtopic.php?f=150&p=792195#p792190

What I think you should do in a debate: My stance on debates, and how to 'win' in one (if you can) is to have the opposition admit that you might have a point. There are two ways you can do this: By proving yourself right, or proving the opposition wrong.

Why I want to thrash Woeler: He will ask us plenty of questions, and state his opinion. Members will then quote his points, and argue with individual things he will say. What I see as problematic is that Woeler never does that himself. He never answers questions, and in effect, fails to either defend himself, or go on the offensive. His favorite tactic is to deflect attention away from what was asked of him to something else.

For instance, his argument: I will quote it and state why I think he is wrong. Up until now, he never actually ever provided a counter-argument. Maybe he might here, because I specifically pointed it out, but if not, well, it just goes to show my point...

[quote="Woeler1"] Rude means I insult someone, and sure I am rude when it comes to religion. But if you are truly convinced of your gunstandpoint you should not whine. You are no different from me. Your standpoints never change, and you too think you are always right. I am not the one calling names on the political issues.[/quote]

Rude doesn't have to be explicitly insulting someone by calling them an idiot, moron, or whatever. Your attitude can also determine if you're rude or not, for instance, refusing to answer a question directed at you. When I ask you to "explain X", you never do. This is why my stance never changed: You are the only one who might even come up with a convincing argument, but you refuse to do so. Everything you ever said about guns is just two phrases: Guns kill people, and justify all gun deaths.

When I ask you for specifics or to try and counter evidence to the contrary, you never did. How do you imagine I felt like when I asked you you to justify banning people's rights to defend themselves? What I wanted to see was your answer. To see how you compare gun crime to gun safety and, because you prefer to ban guns, why you consider the benefits of banning guns as greater than the risks of not allowing regular, honest citizens in owning them. So how you feel like when your reply was the same one you would use as your starting argument: "How about you justify all the deaths caused by guns". You didn't call me an idiot, but I felt insulted just the same. I asked you a question, and you didn't answer.

This is how we are different: I think I am right, yes. I hardly change my stance, yes. But I also explain why. When people quote me to try and show me that I am wrong, I will quote them right back and explain why their argument won't work. Or, if they are correct, admit that yes, I was wrong.

I have never seen you do this, and this is what sets us apart. You like to 'debate', while I actually seek answers.

So, Woeler: Care to explain?

[Woeler]

Will post wall of text when I get home XD

[Azdgari]

This will be brutally overcomplicated. I don't know about debating, but here's what I think about intelligent discussion:

1) Bring an informed opinion.
2) Argue respectfully
3) Be open to being wrong.

Follow those simple rules, and discussion will be productive. :]

And since we're calling out individuals, here's what I see: Woeler, you don't listen to others enough. DG, you don't listen to yourself enough. ;3

[FlipMode]

I think you could have just sent a PM to Woeler instead of making a thread to call him out in. Even like he said, post it in his Q&A.

But as for the question, a debate, in my eyes is just the same as a discussion of any kind, but with added strength to opinions in the form of evidence, examples, research, experience and such.
I.E if one posts "I think guns should be banned because they kill people." that is a kind of "discussion post" now if someone provides reasoning, evidence to support and all that good stuff it becomes debatable and you can post your opinion, with your own evidence and such.

Remember in a debate, one can not be right, and the other wrong per se. Have you ever watched or heard a professional level debate? It is basically two differing, very strong opinions. And the one seen as the stronger one, wins. It may not be the truth, but it wins on a competitive level.
They then shake hands, and leave. Just like any competitive sport (providing that they are both good sportsmen)
So, when people here on MLK begin to back up their own opinions rather than just attacking other people's (which is one of the reasons I stopped getting involved in them recently) then we can enjoy argumentative threads that do not effect members of the community on a personal level, we can avoid making threads that target a single member, and generally, things would be calmer.

That is, assuming you meant debates on MLK. If you meant in general, well then I guess my opinion still applies there as well.

[AdAstrα]

I agree with Flip on this one. Was it necessary to create a whole topic about this? I personally don't see why this is relevant to anyone else but you and Woeler.

[FlipMode]

[quote="AdAstra"]I agree with Flip on this one. Was it necessary to create a whole topic about this? I personally don't see why this is relevant to anyone else but you and Woeler.[/quote]

Well that was only one point though, DGF was also asking how we think debates should be ran. =) That is why it is relevant to others. He was merely using Woeler as an example to back up his opinion, which ironically happens to be a common tactic in debates =D

[Woeler]

[quote="Dictionary"]Debate is a method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than deductive reasoning, which only examines whether a conclusion is a consequence of premisses, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case, or rhetoric which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic. The outcome of a debate depends upon consensus or some formal way of reaching a resolution, rather than the objective facts as such. In a formal debating contest, there are rules for participants to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact.[/quote]

Ok, where to start? First of all, what is a debate? I've been in a local debating society for over a year now and I have been debating since I was 14 I think. So I think I can safely say that I am the one with most experience on the topic ''what is a debate''.

first of all, in a debate nobody is right or wrong. A debate is always about an issue that is unresolved and contains 2 opposite opinions such as abortion, politics etc. One can not be wrong in politics. One can be bad in politics but not wrong. The same goes for the gun topic. There is no right answer, there are two opinions. The point of a debate is to defend those opinions and attack the other. One can argue that the moon-landing was a hoax and still win a debate because he or she simply presented the opinion better.

Second of all, in political debates we don't call out to others as fools or idiots. Rule number one I had to learn when I joined the debating society is to not use vulgar language. Now you say ''you call people deluded zealots!''. Yes, I do. That is not in the political debates, that is in the religious debates. In those debates I can demonstrate why a person might be a zealot.

Third, personal attacks. A personal attack is not done in a debating society. You'll immediately be disqualified. That does not mean calling out to certain groups (Race, political views, religion etc.).

Fourth, friends. People can be friends. Before and after the debate. In a real debate you verbally fight to the death. You are not nice to your enemy. If you're given the opportunity to strike, you take that opportunity.

Fifth, butthurt is term we do not know in debating.

Sixth, Debating is a sport. It's not only providing evidence. Heck you don't even need valid evidence. If you come up with some ridiculous evidence and your opponent swallows it, you won. Again, it's not about who is right. There is much more to debating like manipulation and luring people in a trap. What DGF describes is discussing, not debating.

So, if you seek answers, don't debate. You won't find them there. A debate is a place for an opinion. A debate is not friendly (during the debate). I should say it would be handy if we had a ''debating'' section in the World Issues so that people who don't want their opinion questioned can stay out of it.

If I am such an utter ''fool'' as you put it. Silence me. You can silence me on physics or on chemistry, because those things can be answered by facts. Politics, gunlaws and such things can not be answered by facts. They can be debated.

You're not searching for a debate, you're searching for a discussion.

And about those gunlaws. I think I said it one-hundred times on Gtalk: Guns can't be made illegal in the US anymore, it's too late. They should have been banned before they were legal. If that would have happened a different culture would have emerged. (we're not going to debate here. I'm just demonstrating!)

And that is what I said. It is a reasonable standpoint.

You either like debates or you don't. There is no gray area. You either like the challenge or you don't.

The words right and wrong have no place in debating, and that is a common misconception about debates. If someone can be ultimately right, it's not a debate.

I find it rather amusing that you direct this thread at me, out of which I conclude that you are either offended by what I say, or you're just trying to point a finger and me to try and make me look like an idiot to others. You could have sent me a pm or you could have gone to my Q&A thread, instead you did it in public (by which I mean the election topic). This thread is more like ''look at me, I'm trying to analyze Woeler's brain''.

If the things I say frustrate you I can really say nothing more than... well... Grow up. I debate the way that suits me and I seem to be respected for it IRL quite well. American politics is not my expertise but that does not mean I can't have a strong opinion about it. Yes, I'm a European, so try to interpret it like it comes from a European. I think I said it multiple times that I get your point on the guns as an American. I just don't agree.

Some of my points: (please don't argue here)
-Guns are bad
-Socialism is good up to a certain point
-Religion is stupid evil
-Human life is sacred

Rather typical views for an outspoken Dutchman. Don't act like I'm some kind of weird animal that comes from a different planet. You're talking like you're observing an animal in the zoo.

We should rename this thread: Debating and your daily mocking of Woeler.

So, my solution? Make a separate section for debates, or put debate tags in the topic names so that we can avoid misconceptions like this in the future.

Nobody needs to argue with me over ''what is a debate?''. The things I stated above is basically what you need to know.

[FlipMode]

[quote="Woeler1"][quote="Dictionary"]Debate is a method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than deductive reasoning, which only examines whether a conclusion is a consequence of premisses, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case, or rhetoric which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic. The outcome of a debate depends upon consensus or some formal way of reaching a resolution, rather than the objective facts as such. In a formal debating contest, there are rules for participants to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact.[/quote]

Ok, where to start? First of all, what is a debate? I've been in a local debating society for over a year now and I have been debating since I was 14 I think. So I think I can safely say that I am the one with most experience on the topic ''what is a debate''.

first of all, in a debate nobody is right or wrong. A debate is always about an issue that is unresolved and contains 2 opposite opinions such as abortion, politics etc. One can not be wrong in politics. One can be bad in politics but not wrong. The same goes for the gun topic. There is no right answer, there are two opinions. The point of a debate is to defend those opinions and attack the other. One can argue that the moon-landing was a hoax and still win a debate because he or she simply presented the opinion better.

Second of all, in political debates we don't call out to others as fools or idiots. Rule number one I had to learn when I joined the debating society is to not use vulgar language. Now you say ''you call people deluded zealots!''. Yes, I do. That is not in the political debates, that is in the religious debates. In those debates I can demonstrate why a person might be a zealot.

Third, personal attacks. A personal attack is not done in a debating society. You'll immediately be disqualified. That does not mean calling out to certain groups (Race, political views, religion etc.).

Fourth, friends. People can be friends. Before and after the debate. In a real debate you verbally fight to the death. You are not nice to your enemy. If you're given the opportunity to strike, you take that opportunity.

Fifth, butthurt is term we do not know in debating.

Sixth, Debating is a sport. It's not only providing evidence. Heck you don't even need valid evidence. If you come up with some ridiculous evidence and your opponent swallows it, you won. Again, it's not about who is right. There is much more to debating like manipulation and luring people in a trap. What DGF describes is discussing, not debating.

So, if you seek answers, don't debate. You won't find them there. A debate is a place for an opinion. A debate is not friendly (during the debate). I should say it would be handy if we had a ''debating'' section in the World Issues so that people who don't want their opinion questioned can stay out of it.

If I am such an utter ''fool'' as you put it. Silence me. You can silence me on physics or on chemistry, because those things can be answered by facts. Politics, gunlaws and such things can not be answered by facts. They can be debated.

You're not searching for a debate, you're searching for a discussion.

And about those gunlaws. I think I said it one-hundred times on Gtalk: Guns can't be made illegal in the US anymore, it's too late. They should have been banned before they were legal. If that would have happened a different culture would have emerged. (we're not going to debate here. I'm just demonstrating!)

And that is what I said. It is a reasonable standpoint.

You either like debates or you don't. There is no gray area. You either like the challenge or you don't.

The words right and wrong have no place in debating, and that is a common misconception about debates. If someone can be ultimately right, it's not a debate.

I find it rather amusing that you direct this thread at me, out of which I conclude that you are either offended by what I say, or you're just trying to point a finger and me to try and make me look like an idiot to others. You could have sent me a pm or you could have gone to my Q&A thread, instead you did it in public (by which I mean the election topic). This thread is more like ''look at me, I'm trying to analyze Woeler's brain''.

If the things I say frustrate you I can really say nothing more than... well... Grow up. I debate the way that suits me and I seem to be respected for it IRL quite well. American politics is not my expertise but that does not mean I can't have a strong opinion about it. Yes, I'm a European, so try to interpret it like it comes from a European. I think I said it multiple times that I get your point on the guns as an American.

Some of my points: (please don't argue here)
-Guns are bad
-Socialism is good up to a certain point
-Religion is stupid
-Human life is sacred

Rather typical views for an outspoken Dutchman. Don't act like I'm some kind of weird animal that comes from a different planet. You're talking like you're observing an animal in the zoo.

We should rename this thread: Debating and your daily mocking of Woeler.

So, my solution? Make a separate section for debates, or put debate tags in the topic names so that we can avoid misconceptions like this in the future.

Nobody needs to argue with me over ''what is a debate?''. The things I stated above is basically what you need to know.[/quote]

I'm sure we had posted that idea to Moka not too long ago about putting debate tags onto threads which are actually debates and not discussions of news stories.
And I think it would be great. so many times I have been talking to someone on here and they say "I posted my opinion on this in another thread" I think it was the gay marriage thread, someone said they posted their thoughts on the matter in the Election thread... What the election has to do with gay marriage, especially considering not everyone in the discussion was even from the US; i'm not sure. But having a tag on it would have likely helped keep it on topic.

And yes, your explanation of what a debate is, is in fact correct. But maybe there is a difference between debating on a serious level in a society, and then debating with (to be blunt, kids) on a Lion King forum?

[DGFone]

I agree about placing debate tags on the debating topics. It will separate them from topics that generally devolve into arguments because of dufuses like this one
<--

But yes, both you Woeler and Flip are right: what I am doing and what Woeler do are completely different, which can explain a lot of the misunderstandings. As Woeler showed just now, he knows very well what debating is. But everyone else over here? It's a Lion King fan forum. I don't think anyone else here knows how to debate properly.

So here are also a few suggestions I came up with: Should we have some sort of "debating rules" that people have to follow while posting in the debating topics? They won't necessarily agree with the international definition of debating, but MLK is not a debating forum. For instance:

1. No name-calling
2. When a question is asked of you specifically, you have to provide an answer.
3. If you state a fact, show your sources.

Opinions?

[Woeler]

[quote="DGFone"]
1. No name-calling
2. When a question is asked of you specifically, you have to provide an answer.
3. If you state a fact, show your sources.

Opinions?[/quote]
I can answer that from the debating-rule book (Is there a book? Yes there is lol)

1. speaks for itself

2. Not entirely, one can always try to evade the question in any way. If you do it in a stupid way, you're gonna look stupid and lose by default, but if you can do it in a convincing and smart way, you win.

3. If asked, yes. You can always state a ''fact''. I someone asks for a source and you can't provide one, well, you look pretty stupid Xd. If the opponent swallows that ''fact'' without a source, you're debating pretty good.

Debating is not based on truth. A master debater will be able to win a debate almost entirely based on lies.