Page 6 of 6 [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

22 Nov 2012, 7:35 pm

marshall wrote:
I guess this thread just serves to prove that intelligent debate is impossible. All I see are both sides banging their heads against the wall over irreconcilable ethical disagreements. There is a quote, I don't remember from where, that human beings are rationalizing rather than rational. The root of all arguments don't boil down to logic but to a fight over which monkeys deserve the best position at the watering hole. We might as well not even have debates. Might as well settle our differences with clubs and fists. Historically that's what it seems to always come down to whenever sh** really hits the fan. :roll:

Marshall, quit being ridiculous. Debates are simply a cheaper and easier way than clubs and fists. The winner of the debate is the side that has the best use of rhetoric and most impressive supporting statements to make. So a person can win a debate, and they win them all of the time, and it's cheaper than fighting.

Intelligent debates are harder, but remember to throw your weight around. An intelligent debate is simply one where status gains are more centrally based upon displays of intellectual superiority, so use everything you can to signal intellectual superiority and to mock people who show incompetence in that field. Basically, you just need people who understand how to play that game, and how the points are scored. :P

(That being said, I think the banging is in many places more of a matter of poor thinking. So, there are possible debates that would go along the lines you'd want them, but they'd require intelligent participants who knew what they were saying in the overall context. Ironically, if "intelligent debate is impossible" then this should also prove that you are not capable of engaging in an intelligent debate. :P )