Page 1 of 3 [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Apr 2010, 4:45 am

Does the term debate mean to argue for or against a side of an issue? Does it entail a certain method or just freestyle random arguing?



TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

02 Apr 2010, 5:41 am

Random arguing and if that doesn't render a submission from the other debaters then a certain amount of ridicule of their arguments or of them as a person. There - I hope that has cleared up your question. :wink:


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

02 Apr 2010, 5:42 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Does the term debate mean to argue for or against a side of an issue? Does it entail a certain method or just freestyle random arguing?


What are the formal requirements for debate and how do they differ from what you term random argument?

Incidentally, many of the submissions on this site are not necessarily debate. They could be mere discussions.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Apr 2010, 6:21 am

TallyMan wrote:
Random arguing and if that doesn't render a submission from the other debaters then a certain amount of ridicule of their arguments or of them as a person. There - I hope that has cleared up your question. :wink:


LOL, that's actually fairly accurate.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

02 Apr 2010, 6:33 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Does the term debate mean to argue for or against a side of an issue? Does it entail a certain method or just freestyle random arguing?


For formal debate, I believe there is some kind of order or protocol to do for debate what Robert's Rules of Order do for a business meeting: A topic is announced, an argument is presented, then a counter and rebuttals.

Few people here are even close to being capable of legitimate debate.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

02 Apr 2010, 6:38 am

leejosepho wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Does the term debate mean to argue for or against a side of an issue? Does it entail a certain method or just freestyle random arguing?


For formal debate, I believe there is some kind of order or protocol to do for debate what Robert's Rules of Order do for a business meeting: A topic is announced, an argument is presented, then a counter and rebuttals.

Few people here are even close to being capable of legitimate debate.


Since it is so rare an option we might as well disregard it and continue as before. That is enjoyable enough.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Apr 2010, 6:44 am

leejosepho wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Does the term debate mean to argue for or against a side of an issue? Does it entail a certain method or just freestyle random arguing?


For formal debate, I believe there is some kind of order or protocol to do for debate what Robert's Rules of Order do for a business meeting: A topic is announced, an argument is presented, then a counter and rebuttals.

Few people here are even close to being capable of legitimate debate.


Debating is a sport. It is not a serious technique to get to the truth about matters.

ruveyn



phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

02 Apr 2010, 9:31 am

Ah yes, in debates there is usually a turn of speech. :p A code, if you will, that people follow to allow participants to share their opinions equally (at least, in theory).



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

02 Apr 2010, 9:49 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Does the term debate mean to argue for or against a side of an issue? Does it entail a certain method or just freestyle random arguing?

The term debate entails to have two or more sides, each with people arguing for their side or against other sides.

There is not a specific method across all occasions of debate, however, the emphasis is upon reasoning and other methods that are considered valid as a means to find truth.

Quote:
Debating is a sport. It is not a serious technique to get to the truth about matters.

To some extent you are correct in that debating carries with it talents that are outside of those relevant to find or express truth. Then again, most literature also uses techniques as well, and in literature as well as debate, lies can be expressed as can dishonest tactics be used.

All of that being said, I would have to say that debate is to some extent a serious technique to get to the truth about things. I mean, what are the alternatives? Most writings that are academic or public are expressing an attitude as part of a larger debate anyway.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

02 Apr 2010, 10:00 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Does the term debate mean to argue for or against a side of an issue? Does it entail a certain method or just freestyle random arguing?

The term debate entails to have two or more sides, each with people arguing for their side or against other sides.

There is not a specific method across all occasions of debate, however, the emphasis is upon reasoning and other methods that are considered valid as a means to find truth.

Quote:
Debating is a sport. It is not a serious technique to get to the truth about matters.

To some extent you are correct in that debating carries with it talents that are outside of those relevant to find or express truth. Then again, most literature also uses techniques as well, and in literature as well as debate, lies can be expressed as can dishonest tactics be used.

All of that being said, I would have to say that debate is to some extent a serious technique to get to the truth about things. I mean, what are the alternatives? Most writings that are academic or public are expressing an attitude as part of a larger debate anyway.


A good deal of truth is acquired merely by one person examining possibilities and data and comparable patterns and patiently fitting things together into a workable and validated hypothesis with no debate involved.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Apr 2010, 10:29 am

Sand wrote:

A good deal of truth is acquired merely by one person examining possibilities and data and comparable patterns and patiently fitting things together into a workable and validated hypothesis with no debate involved.


Which is why scientists do not usually debate issues. They publish papers in refereed scientific journals. If anyone has problems with the content, they to are published. Then the originating writer answers those objects in writing. Facts, figures and rigorous mathematical reasoning carry the burden of argumentation.

Which is why I love science and math and I detest theology and politics.

ruveyn



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

02 Apr 2010, 4:33 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Debating is a sport. It is not a serious technique to get to the truth about matters.


Maybe that is why I am such a lousy debater, eh?!

Personally, I see debate as an orderly way for each "side" to have its voice heard before undecided or inquisitive others who are then also being allowed to draw conclusions of their own. But when people have vested interests in the outcome or when the overall exposition is turned into a contact sport, I say nobody truly ever gains anything.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


fidelis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 567
Location: Somewhere in the deeper corners of my mind.

02 Apr 2010, 4:56 pm

leejosepho wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Debating is a sport. It is not a serious technique to get to the truth about matters.


Maybe that is why I am such a lousy debater, eh?!

Personally, I see debate as an orderly way for each "side" to have its voice heard before undecided or inquisitive others who are then also being allowed to draw conclusions of their own. But when people have vested interests in the outcome or when the overall exposition is turned into a contact sport, I say nobody truly ever gains anything.


Besides the audience. The point of the "sport" is to sway them, not the other side.


_________________
I just realized that I couldn't possibly realize what I just realized.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

02 Apr 2010, 5:14 pm

I'd have to refrain from ruveyn's cynicism.

Here's what I am going to say:
1) Most people don't think in a vacuum. To be able to constructively think, it is often useful to have the thoughts of others. To be able to constructively think, it is often useful to have existing hypotheses that you can later modify. Often, the hypotheses are gained somewhat through interactions with other people, as otherwise you won't know where to first look for information. Even further though, often people do a lot of the legwork in constructing ideas for you. Lazy people learn to spout out the theories of others, and incrementally improve on them. Smart people do the same. The smart ones often find ways to transcend these theories rather than ignoring them though.

2) Debates usually include things like reasoning, and facts. Now, most people only will debate over issues where there is less ability to get clear information, but this does not degrade the activity to that in a game. On some level, a large number of academic papers are arguments in an ongoing debate. Now, rhetoric is important in debates, but then again, rhetoric is on some level important for our assessment of the world in general anyway. If we pick books, we'll pick ones that are rhetorically interesting, even if there isn't an explicit debate going on.

As for scientists not usually debating issues, usually scientific questions are too complicated and mathematical for a normal debate format. Also, scientists often lack the training for debate that a number of non-scientists have, which is part of the reason why biologists don't tend to argue creationists, as the latter tends to have debating skills that the former utterly lacks.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

02 Apr 2010, 5:17 pm

fidelis wrote:
The point of the "sport" is to sway [the audience], not the other side.


No. The point is to offer opportunities for people to draw their own conclusions.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


fidelis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 567
Location: Somewhere in the deeper corners of my mind.

02 Apr 2010, 5:42 pm

leejosepho wrote:
fidelis wrote:
The point of the "sport" is to sway [the audience], not the other side.


No. The point is to offer opportunities for people to draw their own conclusions.


That wouldn't be good politics. If everyone drew their own conclusions, there wouldn't be a government right now.


_________________
I just realized that I couldn't possibly realize what I just realized.