What does it mean to debate?

Post Reply New Topic

I always thought debating was pretty much arguing your side of the issue along with insulting either the person with whom you're debating or insulting their arguments. Both parties in the debate are not going to change their views because they don't want to admit in a debate when they're wrong. That's just my opinion, though.

Yeah.... I think that too much insulting often can take place. I mean, yes, there is a role for rhetoric where you can mock an argument or person to kind of really get your point across, however, the arguments do give people an ability to learn more about the subject though. They also can be entertaining so long as they aren't too mocking. I dunno, I've gotten into a few arguments off-site with some woman who is just outright demeaning to my intelligence when I disagree with her, and it isn't fun or worthwhile in that situation. However, if the other person and you can exchange ideas somewhat, then debating can be fun.

(I get the strange feeling that I am trying to get into an argument on a thread about argument, but.... I do think that defending my position is worthwhile)

Yes, exactly, and neither would there be the lies and deceptions of religion.

That does tend to occur, though if the audience is of reasonable intellect they can help keep everyone honest by calling out rhetorical fallacies when they see them. Baiting is one such tactic that sees a lot of use around here; trying to anger your opposing debater to make them respond emotionally and throw them off their game. I often enter debates by attacking one of the arguer's technique more so than their position itself, I get some satisfaction out of demonstrating the fallacious nature of certain tactics, and might even educate both parties on how to persuade more effectively in the future. This is not to say that I'm completely innocent when a debate I'm in turns ugly, but I do try to maintain a higher standard for the most part.

1.a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.

2.a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debate

That's the definition, personally I think it (a formal debate) is more about impressing the audience and/or judges. In a formal debate it's finished after three arguments, that's not enough time to explore a subject in depth, it is enough time to make your side look better to the crowd though. Often the third point which you are not allowed to rebut is the most stupid one which deserves the most rebuttal. Debating seems to be a popularity contest, not a serious way of discussing a topic.

Those are the conclusions I have drawn from watching several debates. I'm hardly an expert though.

Truth is not a prize to be won in a contest.

ruveyn

That reminds me of Socrates maieutics which is the search for the truth. Socrates maieutics were composed of two moments: first he led his disciples to doubt about their own knowledge about a certain subject. Then, Socrates led them to conceive from themselves a new idea, a new opinion about the subject they were analysing. Through this method Socrates could go from simple ideas to more complex ideas about the subject. The Socratic method is an oppositional discussion in which defending your ideas you try to induce the person you´re debating with to make a contradiction leading him to the conclusion that his knowledge about the subject is limited.

When discussing a principle or proposition Socrates would draw from it an unexpected but undeniable consequence which was plainly inconsistent with the opinion impugned. In this way he brought his interlocutor to pass judgment upon himself, and reduced him to a state of doubt or perplexity. Through that way the interlocutor would improve his notions until he arrived at the true concept by means of successive approximations. According to Socrates it was through this process that better opinions were induced. He valued a lot direct contact with his interlocutors, that being the reason why he left no writings of his own.

How else might we get there?

I have never before heard that, but I think I understand it and use it myself. My own approach is to assume we can trust each other to challenge each other is ways that are not harmful while yet trying to get past our own individual, shared or combined perceptions, beliefs, ideas, etc.

By careful observation, sound measurement and correct logic. One does not need a contest to do those things. Also one does not need an audience either.

ruveyn

Yes, and I did not mean for that to come out the way it sounded.

So, how does one assure "correct logic"?

Many people here have contempt prior to any observation at all.

Actually, one probably does need contests and audiences. Is the success of science because each scientist is this sound moral pillar with super-knowledge? No. Rather the scientific community weeds out crazy people and keeps the sane ones. Insanity isn't a matter of carelessness, sound measurement, or correct logic, but rather it is just a matter of getting caught in a mind trap, whether it is astrology, witchcraft, or creation science. Few people know how to rebut a massive amount of arguments and excuses by zealots for their own "pursuit", so we need a community that knows to collectively ignore the nonsense and go with the good stuff.

Yes.

this topic is much like how america is not a democracy but a republic. 51% of the people does seem like slavery you know

It depends on context. Lets make two categories.

1. "Lets win the discussion by all means"

2. "Lets argue"

I think, debate means both extremes, we shift on the continuum to either extremes.

the types of debates happen only if they make a difference for decision making.



The senate is in theory supposed to be there to ensure a supermajority. But the first past the post electoral system nuckes even the 51% you mentioned. The real numbers are what? Probably .... 35%? Under these circumstances(first takes all, the rest takes the dust), n°1 debating becomes important in decision making, 1% counts a lot, less need to compromise.

In the European Union(a confederation), decisions are taken with ridiculously huge supermajorities, if you don't compromise, nothing gets done, we can say its not a democracy either. They are almost no n°1 debates at all in the EU, at european level. Even at 5th place you can still squeeze something in.



Scientists debate too, even n°1 debates. The difference, is that decisions are taken by consensus among experts. So wining or losing debates is not that important.

and philosophy?





Well, that's a point from scientific related issues such as creationism, the supernatural, etc. but even so, how about consensus? in any case I don't think that actually works for non-scientific issues (things not related to natural science) such as psychology, sociology and ethics, important decision making, I mean, debating seems to be a necessity for those things.