I’ve been noticing the word “debate” being tossed around the forum recently, and wanted to share a thought.

A debate is where your key motivation is to win the argument, whether you are correct or not. Tactics like attempting to make your opponent look stupid, quoting out of context, and general “verbal tap dancing” are all used.

A discussion is where you disagree, but where you're prepared to look at the other person's point of view. Ideally, you should also be open to being persuaded that your point of view is in fact incorrect. This should be the “desired” mode of interaction in most cases.

Debate is an ego tool, undertaken by opponents where you win and your opponent loses. A discussion is a spiritual tool undertaken by friends with a common goal. In a discussion, both win through exploration to understand the truth. The purpose of a discussion is to exchange a number of differing points of views so that people can have as much information as possible.

A discussion is for the participants. A debate is for the audience.

:m: Peace.

That's right.... listen to Goofy, I have used debate myself but I really meant discuss. Rather than discuss, I would like to add that we are really performing like a herd of elephants with diarehea as Goofy so nicely highlighted in his signature block.

Debate? Discussion? Where? All I see anymore is trolling, ranting, insulting, and general bitchiness that I wouldn't have credited to a room full of cats...

El Sparks, be positive man, start with the self. Here's my effort for the day.

A room of cat could be a lovely room full of fuzzy cute creatures that purr all day, and you look lovely today El Sparks.

"One can always spot a well informed person, they hold the same opnions as you"

Might I request a few poster child posts and/or threads that you find meet your criteria so we can be more selective in our word choices?

When did things change??

Eight months ago when I posted my first thread on this forum concerning "Dead Peasant" insurance policies, I was immediatly drawn into a definite debate by a senior member with thousands of posts to his credit. My orignal intentions had been to discuss the topic in a fair and open manner. When I simply agreed to disagree with this person, I was met with a refusal. To make a long story sort, I finally blasted the turkey as being unethical and immoral.

He was immediately congratulated and pronounced the "winner" by non other than yourself. What the hell is going on???

I remember it; I'm not saying that I am an innocent or that this is some kind
of rule. But it would certainly help the overall tenor of the forums if we were
able to maintain a non-adversarial atmosphere - difficult when debating.

:m: Peace.

Originally posted by justiceusa
...I was immediatly drawn into a definite debate by a senior member with thousands of posts to his credit... To make a long story sort, I finally blasted the turkey as being unethical and immoral.

He was immediately congratulated and pronounced the "winner" by non other than yourself.
I got curious and had to go back and read the thread in question. I appreciate you bringing it up. Zanket was actually a senior member with a few hundred posts. My comment was regarding the ad-hominem attack you mention.

"A debate is for the audience." Yes, I was swept up in the moment, and responded poorly to a discussion that fell into a debate. And even now, eight months later, he is a "turkey" for arguing a different point of view. Thanks - you give us a great example.

:m: Peace.

Debate is a way of resolving issues and moving forward. And if you know the rules, it's actually quite a relief from the baseless accusations and malformed arguments you see around here :)

Did you notice your attempt to slander debate was in itself a tactic of what you objected to in debate (the word is "sophistry," for your future use)?

I would rather see Socratic methods banned.

Originally posted by goofyfish
But it would certainly help the overall tenor of the forums if we were
able to maintain a non-adversarial atmosphere - difficult when debating.


Yet thousands of debaters do it every day.

"and even now 8 months later he is a turkey for argueing a different point of view"

_________________________________________________

Was he really arguing a differen't point of view? Or just looking for a "victory" in a debate? I will probably never know.

Yet ironicaly I learned a lot from that experience and to this day I admire the guy. :)

Goofy . IMO a debate should be considered rhetorically motivated , while a discussion should be motivated by the will to know .

I agree with about everything you further on say :

* ego tool - intellectual tool
* audience - participants

But it would certainly help the overall tenor of the forums if we were able to maintain a non-adversarial atmosphere - difficult when debating.

I believe it would be very nice if there would be possibility to rather discuss than debate . It is obvious that in the other forums there is much less debate and much more discuss compared to WE&P & religion .

I say its toobad , but when there is such a great variety of extreme positions and such variety of intelligence , you cannot escape the debate .

I dont know what you mean by non-adversarial (Relating to or characteristic of an adversary; involving antagonistic elements: “the chasm between management and labor in this country, an often needlessly adversarial... atmosphere ????)

:confused:

Could you explain ? perhaps you mean something like hostile ?

I believe it would be very nice if there would be possibility to rather discuss than debate . It is obvious that in the other forums there is much less debate and much more discuss compared to WE&P & religion .

but that's just the nature of Politics and religion, both are emotionally charged subjects.