The Nature of Debate

What is exactly is the point of a debate?


Different people seem to have different agendas when entering a debate. Some people seem to do it just to prove that their religion or beliefs are correct and cannot be proven wrong. Other people actually go into a debate to see how strong their argument is and they might decide to change their mind if superior evidence comes along.

When I start a debate, It's not to prove my point correct, It's to get a valid, convincing, and correct argument on the issues from my point of view.

well debates are usally....well not arguments but you get what i mean

but i see it as a discussion where people try to put their point across and argue why they believe whatever view that is

Yes but it's annoying people don't even listen and just attack each other instead.

I go into debates trying to question others beliefs, and to try and open their eyes to other options and oppinions if they seem like they are super closed minded.

WhiteDemonist wrote:

Yes but it's annoying people don't even listen and just attack each other instead.

The whole point of debate is to listen, so therfore you can make points for and against your opponent.

mcr666 wrote:

WhiteDemonist wrote:

Yes but it's annoying people don't even listen and just attack each other instead.

The whole point of debate is to listen, so therfore you can make points for and against your opponent.

Your completely right.

In a structured debate round they have a speaker from one team speak, then they let the other team question the speaker, then vice versa.
It usually goes for three or four rounds.

Nation wrote:

mcr666 wrote:

WhiteDemonist wrote:

Yes but it's annoying people don't even listen and just attack each other instead.

The whole point of debate is to listen, so therfore you can make points for and against your opponent.

Your completely right.

In a structured debate round they have a speaker from one team speak, then they let the other team question the speaker, then vice versa.
It usually goes for three or four rounds.

If only people could do that on the forums, instead of jumping on the first person who disagrees with them.

mcr666 wrote:

Nation wrote:

mcr666 wrote:

WhiteDemonist wrote:

Yes but it's annoying people don't even listen and just attack each other instead.

The whole point of debate is to listen, so therfore you can make points for and against your opponent.

Your completely right.

In a structured debate round they have a speaker from one team speak, then they let the other team question the speaker, then vice versa.
It usually goes for three or four rounds.

If only people could do that on the forums, instead of jumping on the first person who disagrees with them.

That would be quite preferable. We'd have way less cussing.

And a lot less spam

You only "win" in a debate whenever you've learned something from it.

Yeah I agree..
The only way someone can win a debate in structured environments, is to convince the judge you know what your talking about, and all your facts back you up.
It's not about who's right or wrong, it's about the evidence and delivery.

Jacqueline wrote:

When debating, I don't try to show up the other person.
The goal, for me, is to inform them & show them my idea & why I support it.

Do you ever change your mind?

mcr666 wrote:

WhiteDemonist wrote:

Yes but it's annoying people don't even listen and just attack each other instead.

The whole point of debate is to listen, so therfore you can make points for and against your opponent.

tht is true but like ID said some people just get wrapped up in the debate and they just end up going off topic and arguing

not all debates end well

I rarely change my mind based on other opinions. When I do, it doesnt change me form pro to con or vice versa, it usually just puts me in a straddling the fence kinda position.

When I debate with someone,
I try to give them reasons why i stand for my point.
I try to understand their point, and try to get my point across.
The difference between a debate and argument is with a debate,
you're trying to make good points AND understand where the other person's
coming from.
If the person I'm debating with is closed minded and argumentative,
I'd rather stop talking to them because then it's just pointless.

I go into a debate attempting to explain my point and why I support it, and maybe even enlighten someone else.
I don't usually completely change my stand on a subject(like most) if a good argument is put up, but sometimes I will think about and pick apart a different idea or aspect.

BlackMirror wrote:

When I debate with someone,
I try to give them reasons why i stand for my point.
I try to understand their point, and try to get my point across.
The difference between a debate and argument is with a debate,
you're trying to make good points AND understand where the other person's
coming from.
If the person I'm debating with is closed minded and argumentative,
I'd rather stop talking to them because then it's just pointless.

Exactly. People should be able to respectother peoples opinions and be open minded.

I respect the person, not the point being made.
So If I'm debating with someone and their point falls through, and they STILL push it, trying to twist it, instead of seeing that the point makes no sense, I become slightly annoyed with the person.
Because at that point their arguing because they don't want to be embarrassed instead of seeing that their argument is going no where.

So respect to the person, till they become personally involved with the point.

Debates are fun. My motivation is not to prove that I am right or to exercise my brain... It's simply to prove the ones I accused wrong wrong wrong. You won't excercise your brain if you're not agaisnt a formidable opponent.

Athough It may test how fortified my stance is, it is only a side benefit for ramming it to theirs.

It's fun when people squim and try to slither away from the main point. Igniting it even more by dropping a few insults that may be deemed "civilized" or whatever you you call it.

Damnation wrote:

Debates are fun. My motivation is not to prove that I am right or to exercise my brain... It's simply to prove the ones I accused wrong wrong wrong. You won't excercise your brain if you're not agaisnt a formidable opponent.

Yes I think that's also an important part, otherwise we likely wouldn't participate at all.

Quote :

Athough It may test how fortified my stance is, it is only a side benefit for ramming it to theirs.

So if you see weaknesses in your stance do you find evidence to reinforce it or do you ever concede to your opponent?

Quote :

It's fun when people squim and try to slither away from the main point.

It can be if you have the patience for it. I was recently debating someone over the fact that all knowledge is gained from suffering yet he was adamant in the idea that all knowledge comes directly from God himself with no pain or suffering required. If your opponent uses unreasonable "logic" and don't squirm, it's like talking to a wall. It's pointless for both.
Or maybe I just need better tactics.

Quote :

Igniting it even more by dropping a few insults that may be deemed "civilized" or whatever you you call it.

I find that insults derail from the stream of discussion in most cases, however if you wish to psychoanalyze your opponent in order to point out why they hold certain beliefs in spite of evidence directly contrary to fact, that can be fun.

Of course you will say that his actions have been implying that your insults are indeed true. It's a bonus if it's really the truth.

If I see a weakness in my stance (during debate) and my opponent has not yet pointed it out. I will either a.) think of it's limits and defences or b.) If it is a meaningless pursuit... I will simply offer it to my opponent as a gift, stating the weakness . If I see it before the debate... I will of course reinforce or just drop it completely if it is unsalvagable. If my opponent pointed it out during the debate. I will most likely admit my error... For covering it up will only make me look like ClassicFall... especially if my foe is sharp enough to pin me down.

Walls don't count as people. but you can poke walls until they turn red. Fight Fallacies by using fallacies!

Damnation wrote:

Of course you will say that his actions have been implying that your insults are indeed true. It's a bonus if it's really the truth.

I admit that there are times that I find this amusing when delivered properly, otherwise it's simply futility and bothersome to scroll through.


If people want to banter back and forth with personal insults I would suggest taking it to "No Man's Land" if a public duel of that nature is honestly desired.

Quote :

If I see a weakness in my stance (during debate) and my opponent has not yet pointed it out. I will either a.) think of it's limits and defences

Very wise of you.

Quote :

or b.) If it is a meaningless pursuit... I will simply offer it to my opponent as a gift, stating the weakness .

I find that admirable.

Quote :

If I see it before the debate... I will of course reinforce or just drop it completely if it is unsalvagable. If my opponent pointed it out during the debate. I will most likely admit my error... For covering it up will only make me look like ClassicFall... especially if my foe is sharp enough to pin me down.

I'm surprised that sparked such discussion simply over the misuse of the word "whit".
Honestly though I tend to like Classicfall in general.

Quote :

Walls don't count as people. but you can poke walls until they turn red. Fight Fallacies by using fallacies!

I may try that some time, it sounds like fun.