Is it possible to debate anymore?

[Ayumi Hamasaki]

It just doesn't seem like it to me. It seems like people would rather fight with each other, tooth and nail, then to accept that someone has a valid point. Look at the US Government. That can't seem to agree on anything anymore, and their so called "debates" are little more than playing hot potato with the blame.

Look at debates elsewhere. People disagree just to disagree. Honestly, it seems that no one really wants to open up there mind anymore. Honestly, I'm not sure any ever did. It just seems like a rare event when two people can actually discuss something they disagree about it, without both sides putting up impenetrable barriers against each other, and then tossing the same points at each other without listening to the other side.

Even in relationships, we don't wanna talk anymore. We just present our side, and don't want to listen to the other one. It's like there's no joining of the minds. It's I'm right, you're wrong, here's why, if you don't like it deal with it. Or in worse cases, it just becomes a fight.

So what do you guys think? Is it actually possible to debate things anymore?

 

[coffeecup]

It's actually kind of a good thing that people hold convictions in different things, and I don't think the main purpose of a discussion is to have two people come away with the same viewpoint on something (at least for the purposes of what goes on in this forum). The most important thing is really that each person has learned a bit more either about his/her own position and that of the other side. This illumination should be sufficient to allow even people with differing stances on certain ideas to live in harmony.

Now obviously I don't want to paint a rosy fairy tale where we can all hold hands and sing songs around a campfire. Sometimes real pressing conflicts do arise such as the stuff going on in the Middle East with the Jasmine revolution to domestic disputes in American political posturing. But assuming that most of us don't really deal with these types of situations on a day-to-day basis, most of the problems we face during our days are not situations that will inevitable lead to this type of animosity. As long as one side remains open during the discussion (hopefully your side), then any conflict usually dissipates, or at least doesn't escalate to anything substantial.

Even with it comes to relationships, most (all?) of my relationships have been with a person who has never been in "sync" with all of my views. But like I said, that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's only a problem when you don't really try to accommodate the others' opinions, admit that there is more than one way of seeing things. There may be "compromises" on certain things, but you surely don't have to change your opinion on everything. I would hate to be in a relationship like that (<insert marriage joke> haha...I'm kidding in this parenthetical :/).

 

[Ayumi Hamasaki]

It's actually kind of a good thing that people hold convictions in different things, and I don't think the main purpose of a discussion is to have two people come away with the same viewpoint on something (at least for the purposes of what goes on in this forum). The most important thing is really that each person has learned a bit more either about his/her own position and that of the other side. This illumination should be sufficient to allow even people with differing stances on certain ideas to live in harmony.
.

You misunderstood me. I was saying that what you just described doesn't happen anymore. No one learns anything from the other side, because they're so "loyal" to their beliefs that they dismiss whatever is being said, express their views, don't take the other side's views or responses to their views into account, and just keep slinging the same points back and forth without any sort of progress being made.

I don't expect every debate to end with agreement but I would expect people to learn that their opponent is more than an "idiot who obviously has no clue what they're talking" in the process somewhere.

 

[coffeecup]

I was about to go to sleep :/, but I'll post a quick response.

I know that I myself have pretty strong thoughts on how I view certain subjects, and tend to end up in almost all online discussions with a sort of "You have your opinion, and I have mine" kind of ending. It's very difficult to have a real open discussion over the internet as opposed to an actual person-to-person discussion between two people. Maybe it's just me talking from an older generation (albeit being in my younger 20s), but you just can't be as accommodating when you're looking at plain text and an avatar of something random like some Pokemon, as opposed to an actual breathing, living, feeling, human being.

But...despite what kind of disputes may occur on this forum, or the internet in general, I find that it's a rather poor reflection of how discussions happen in day-to-day life. At least in my experience, I've found that being open-minded in discussions tend to result in something better for both parties. So really, I understand that it's a bit disconcerting what you may conclude about human nature when you look at the media and the internet, but I just don't see it as a very accurate representation (or forecast) of how discussions will happen on most occasions in our lifetime.

So people can have a proper discussion if it's approached in the right manner. You and I both seem to recognize this fact. And I'm sure that we're not the only ones.

 

[Dean Winchester]

You can't debate with fanatics. Period. It is like talking to a brick wall and asking it to use common sense (actually convincing a brick wall would be a lot easier). The vast majority don't know when they are blinded by their conviction and pretend to impose on others that their truth is the absolute truth and that it is final. This mostly happens with people from most religions (especially Judeo-Christian and all of its sub divisions).

If they come to a dead end they always reply with the "read the Bible" like a broken record. Doesn't matter much if you can repeat complete verses from the Bible like a parrot if you can't fathom its true meaning and pretend that every word is meant to be taken literal. The Bible is like a great poem (I wonder if the Iliad is more extensive...) and it has as many interpretations as the people who read it (heck, the more you read it, the more interpretations a single person can conclude, so imagine that times 6.0 billions). They are like politicians and lawyers, they fall in love with their own interpretation of the facts and expect the rest of the people to follow them as blindly as they do.

I am not atheist, most people believe I am, I believe in something or someone who must be the Almighty Architect of all Creation, but as I am open to Creationism I am also open to Darwinism and many other theories.

Another thing that annoys me is the "if it is not written in the Bible, it is not true" claim some people make. The dinosaurs weren't mentioned in the Bible so what the bloody hell are the bones exposed at Museums? Did scientist make them?

Or where does petroleum comes from? Yes from remnants of dinosaurs (ancient biomass.... way more ancient than the Bible itself) for crying out loud. Oh wait, petroleum isn't mentioned in the Bible so scientists made that up too.

And let's not venture in the subject of life existing beyond our atmosphere, because since it is not mentioned in the Bible life can't exist outside our Planet (such claim I consider the biggest act of arrogance a human can make). Sure, let's ignore the FACT that water was discovered on Mars TOO, water being fundamental for life. Oh and let's ignore the bacteria there too...

So most fanatics tell me that, in this Universe of incalculable size there is not, by any chance, a planet with similar or even equal characteristics to planet Earth, and that there is NO life outside our Planet and that if by any chance our Planet goes KABOOM, then the Universe will be a vast amount of nothing but floating spherical rocks, satellites, stars, cosmic trash, black holes (etc etc etc) and frozen water? Is it so hard to THINK BY YOURSELF AND NOT DO WHAT FATHER X TOLD YOU TO DO/BELIEVE?

We will see what happens once we reach Pandora (Avatar joke).

Seriously, if God would have wanted a bunch of mindless drones (robots) who keep repeating the same catchphrase like a broken record, why would he keep us? The angels can do that job way better than us, and heck they cause half less trouble. Or hell, why would He want to give us the ability of reasoning and free will on the first place?

And if anyone says: "God works in mysterious ways..." make sure you are not close to me because I'll respond: "Go talk to the wall. I'll try reasoning with the dog which at least does listens...or pretends to...better than talking to a walking brick wall"

Alright, I know this is not a Science vs. Religion Version Incalculable, but actually this is the oldest and easiest way to show how fanaticism can be even more threatening than the Swin Flu which scared the shit out of half the planet.

On a side note, I thank religion (especially the Catholic Church) for keeping us in the dark for hundreds of years, being responsible for the death of millions of innocent people (Holy Inquisition, Crusades, Hitler killing Jews in the name of God...) burning half of the literature that people from our time missed the chance to appreciate because you thought it was spawned by Satan himself, and for me not being able to have a flying DeLorean to travel back in time.





You want an apocalypse? Why not ask scientists to blow the shit out of the planet? We probably have enough nukes to blow the planet, change its orbit, and we would have enough nukes left to blow the shit out of Mars and Jupiter too.

/rant over....

Oh and if you wonder if I've considered I have earned a One way ticket to HELL this is my answer to you. AND I QUOTE!:

"I don't believe in an afterlife, so I don't have to spend my whole life fearing hell, or fearing heaven even more. For whatever the tortures of hell, I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse."—Isaac Asimov

"Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of 10 things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these 10 things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! . . . But He loves you!"
—George Carlin


DISCLAIMER: By the end of this post I expect half of the rock headed Yevonites coming after me, torches and pitchforks in hand, rushing towards me faster than the pursuit against Frankenstein because they will claim I am the Devil himself. Hurray for me, because they will make me feel even more important. Way to go for an ego-booster!


PS: I am not atheist. :dave:

 

[der Astronom]

Here's the problem. We have different standards that we abide by, and if we aren't aware of them, and can't agree to them, obviously we can't simply agree to disagree. Take this section for instance. I've always thought of debate as a discussion where you're not simply just here to talk about ideas; you're here to discuss why you think they're true or not, why you think other people's ideas are not justified, if they aren't, and if they are, you can explain why they are. In debate, no idea is so sacred that they cannot be attacked. Unfortunately, it seems not everyone views debate the same way, and would rather share their ideas without trying to justify them, which I think defeats the whole point of debate, so perhaps that's why it seems like we're attacking people an awful lot. However, I would be happy if people would offer explanations to back up their own arguments. A bit of justification can go a long way if done properly. A debate isn't about attacking people; it should never be, and it should only be about attacking ideas. And that's also why I think people shouldn't take it personally if other people don't like their ideas. Again, saying you don't like someone's ideas is not a statement on them; other people may share those ideas as well, and we don't have to think less of someone just because they don't offer ideas that are well justified.

 

[Demon]

Look at debates elsewhere. People disagree just to disagree. Honestly, it seems that no one really wants to open up there mind anymore. Honestly, I'm not sure any ever did. It just seems like a rare event when two people can actually discuss something they disagree about it, without both sides putting up impenetrable barriers against each other, and then tossing the same points at each other without listening to the other side.

Even in relationships, we don't wanna talk anymore. We just present our side, and don't want to listen to the other one. It's like there's no joining of the minds. It's I'm right, you're wrong, here's why, if you don't like it deal with it. Or in worse cases, it just becomes a fight.

So what do you guys think? Is it actually possible to debate things anymore?

It's terribly difficult to debate anything, because people often don't realize the skills needed to do so.

There are many aspects of the personality that one needs to hone to be a good debater, generally, so it's actually pretty difficult. Until one becomes experienced at it, which can take awhile.

 

[Tom Badguy]

You can't debate with fanatics. Period.

Well, you can debate with them. It's whether or not it's enjoyable, interesting or flat out annoying that's the problem. But I feel ya.

Everyone has their opinion and their own way of expressing it. For forums on the internet it's hard to comprehend a person's emotion or knowledge towards a subject because you are just basing it off text. Not too much you can get out of it. People get offended, people don't care and some people do it for the enjoyment of pissing someone off and prompting them to make an essay and post it.

For face to face debates, it's a lot more manageable. Some people don't get too heated because they don't want everyone around them to think they're insane. The pressures of actually debating face to face keeps most people in check and things tend to go smoothly.

If someone gets really angry and just starts to hate, then that's just how passionately they feel about the subject. Strongly enough to fight over it. It is possible to debate topics with them, but do you really want too? I say pick your battles.

 

[Demon]

If someone gets really angry and just starts to hate, then that's just how passionately they feel about the subject. Strongly enough to fight over it. It is possible to debate topics with them, but do you really want too? I say pick your battles.

You can, but you have to be the same way yourself. A few points aren't enough to win an argument against this type. You tend to need a passion for it like they do.

I might be able to hold my own against them if they aren't "too good", and might try to. Assuming we're talking about people who are trying to have a good, healthy debate. You'll generally have to allow some of your own points to be defeated though, because they usually will be by an equally experienced (or better) debater.

 

[Harlequin]

It seems like people would rather fight with each other, tooth and nail, then to accept that someone has a valid point.

I believe it's a question of ego and self validation. Most people treat debates as an opportunity to showcase their intelligence and superiority rather than actually further their understanding of the subject matter. I suppose once it's applied to relationships and politics conceding ground in an argument depends entirely on who you're conceding to. I know people who I can say I was wrong here but right there, but there are others who I can't afford to, because they'll see one admission as weakness and assume I'm trying to weave my way out of blame.

 

[Demon]

I believe it's a question of ego and self validation. Most people treat debates as an opportunity to showcase their intelligence and superiority rather than actually further their understanding of the subject matter.

I disagree with this because I think that those who showcase their intelligence and superiority are generally beyond having to further their understanding of the subject.

If you have intelligence and superiority, few people can teach you much, and you're often left to teaching yourself.

But if you had a different idea, I'm interested in hearing it.

 

[Harlequin]

If you have intelligence and superiority, few people can teach you much, and you're often left to teaching yourself.

But if you had a different idea, I'm interested in hearing it.

Well I feel everyone has room to learn, from others as well as themselves. Of course the problem isn't whether or not the intellect is there, but whether you're able to discern whether or not you are indeed intellectual.

There are some absolute morons out there who believe there's nothing left to learn

 

[Ayumi Hamasaki]

I disagree with this because I think that those who showcase their intelligence and superiority are generally beyond having to further their understanding of the subject.

If you have intelligence and superiority, few people can teach you much, and you're often left to teaching yourself.

But if you had a different idea, I'm interested in hearing it.

For me most people who are showcasing their intelligence and superiority are the very ones who lack understanding of the subject matter, or the debate at hand. They're so consumed with lecturing you with all their "knowledge" that they aren't seeing any of your points. Given that there are very few people who are actually intelligent enough to have this sort of superiority complex, it's a problem in debates.

People would rather lord their knowledge over you or misconstrue what you say to make themselves look better that there is no debating involved. There's just a lot of fun facts and accusations.

 

[Donald Trump]

I believe it's a question of ego and self validation. Most people treat debates as an opportunity to showcase their intelligence and superiority rather than actually further their understanding of the subject matter. I suppose once it's applied to relationships and politics conceding ground in an argument depends entirely on who you're conceding to. I know people who I can say I was wrong here but right there, but there are others who I can't afford to, because they'll see one admission as weakness and assume I'm trying to weave my way out of blame.

I don't think many people go on eff eff eff for their egos and self validation. I don't particularly think debates widen people's knowledge though. Debates are about two different points of view. No one is likely to change their point of view and facts are irrelevant as both points of view have facts which support their interpretation. Because debates are ultimately pointless I'd agree to an extent that what people want is to show off their intelligence, their knowledge, their vocabulary etc etc. But I think people quite often want to defend their point of view. To pick a random example, if you were to start saying that all muslims are bloodthirsty and want to kill everyone else, I'd feel compelled to defend my view that muslims are not like that.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

In regards to your thread I am very happy about the way people debate these days. It is more logical than ever and it falls on nobodys responsibility to fold their beliefs if they see not fit.

I do agree with you on the idea that people should open their minds up to the otherside more often and that can rise a problem in many debates. Its like voting for goverment officials, some may have things you aggree with while others just may have more things you aggree with....but either way at the end there is only one vote. As long as people are willing to take a perspective look at the other side before making their choice, than it should not matter who wins or loses because at least they know what they are debating about.

Whats TRUELY annoying is when one side will agree to disagree and leave the debate unchanged, and the other side feels they have to get the last words in. Last words do not mean victory, expecially when you have not persuaded the other side. Debates are not supposed to be magical moments of clarity when people see things the same way. Its aggresive exchange of ideas and tricks of persuasion to attempt the other side to see.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

A truly brilliant person, in my opinion, would not demand anyone in a debate to offer proof, but rather prove them wrong. It's that kind of backward gambit that turns debates sour.
I don't think it should be outright cut out to not ask for proof period, but if one has offered nothing, then they cannot ask for nothing. Otherwise, debates just turn into a grudge match.
'Stone the blasphemer' in other words
I also think that people who turn debates into giant technicality are the ones who are scared of their arguments going right out the window- of a car on a highway in semi-heavy traffic on a friday night near the club strip exit by the boulevard during a storm.

We all have minds, and yet 'proof' is just loosely thrown up in the face of contempt for a given idea. It rather is like asking for someone to back you up on your own presented observation. Makes no damn sense, especially when the contrary is yet to be competent anyways.

And strawmans. Let's not forget about those. I'll give a perfect and very common straw man:
Above you will see how I talk about proof, but I do not present much detail until further down.
See, dividing every sentence and presenting criticism for something that is explained below is a form of straw man because one is taking one piece of information and criticizing it rather then taking the entirety of the rationale.
But it's also in multiple posts, also. If one explains an idea, then includes it in another post, heed the information beforehand rather then trying to 'poke holes', becaus eyou are really just being a,, you got it- a straw man.

 

[Marquis of Granby]

its possible to debate yes. on the internet its probly a bit more difficult. the shame of being batshit insane is taken out of the equation because people cannot see you and how you react. i dont think its necessary for debates to be so formal tho, i think thats what often gives them the appearance of a fact slinging sesh between multiple pompous "intellects" rather than just a discussion about a topic.

A truly brilliant person, in my opinion, would not demand anyone in a debate to offer proof, but rather prove them wrong. It's that kind of backward gambit that turns debates sour.
I don't think it should be outright cut out to not ask for proof period, but if one has offered nothing, then they cannot ask for nothing. Otherwise, debates just turn into a grudge match.
'Stone the blasphemer' in other words
I also think that people who turn debates into giant technicality are the ones who are scared of their arguments going right out the window- of a car on a highway in semi-heavy traffic on a friday night near the club strip exit by the boulevard during a storm.

We all have minds, and yet 'proof' is just loosely thrown up in the face of contempt for a given idea. It rather is like asking for someone to back you up on your own presented observation. Makes no damn sense, especially when the contrary is yet to be competent anyways.

And strawmans. Let's not forget about those. I'll give a perfect and very common straw man:
Above you will see how I talk about proof, but I do not present much detail until further down.
See, dividing every sentence and presenting criticism for something that is explained below is a form of straw man because one is taking one piece of information and criticizing it rather then taking the entirety of the rationale.
But it's also in multiple posts, also. If one explains an idea, then includes it in another post, heed the information beforehand rather then trying to 'poke holes', becaus eyou are really just being a,, you got it- a straw man.

you've basically just described the method by which you choose to debate - as seen in various religious debate threads. its no wonder you have such a detailed understanding of the method

 

[Roland_Deschain]

Well debate does not always have to hold facts for victory. Every person has a different philosophy about how things work. Everyone has a different perspective. Two people who know all the facts about what their debating might possibly have the same information, yet do not agree. That is where words, ideas, beliefs and perceptions and philosophys fall into place. A brilliant debater does not need to prove he is right, just that the other person is wrong.

Lets say a person is debating with me about what is the best kind of Soda pop. That person says Coke is the best. I say I prefer Pepsi because of blah blah blah...but I do not say its the best...only that Coke can not be the best because other people do not want to drink it, in fact people have the freedom to partake in whatever soda they want. As long as I take his perspective and prove it wrong in a different manner than he is attempting than I succefully won that debate. He says its the best, I did not say pepsi was the best...just that Coke could not be the best because other people do not drink it. If it were the best than they would all drink it. This argument does not take facts or information, it takes an idea, expression and viewpoint.

Also guys... please do not drag your previous disagreements into this thread...its not really desired by anyone I believe and you can PM each other.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

its how the scientific method works. if we cannot observe it, it might as well not exist.

in my mind thats fair.

There's a difference between something being false and something being unproven.
I will shove this truth until it sets in, because I am tired of it being intentionally confused on every single thread.

 

[Marquis of Granby]

if you cannot prove that something exists, then its fair to believe it doesnt exist.

there is no proof and so no reason to believe it does exist - if it does exit it isnt observable by any means and so it might as well not exist. debates work on the basis that you have evidence to support your argument, lately you been runnin on faith