Dubstepforum.com

dTruk wrote:closed minded debates with the intention to just to 'win' or disprove the other person arent useful....even when the 'facts' are available.

what percentage of debates don't fit this description though. what you just described is the first thing they teach you in debate class. it does not matter who has the truth.

Parson wrote:truth comes from all sorts of ways.

debate is not one of them.

i think the essential problem i have with this is the assumption that debate is necessarily supposed to end with one person winning and that winning means thinking that what you have to say is the "truth".

i find true debate (as in, not keeping score, but a good "discussument") completely valuable as a way to hear ideas that challenge me, push me to think outside my own ideas, make me respond by thinking on my feet, and sometimes helps me articulate my viewpoints in ways i don't do by just thinking in my own head, but only by letting the free flow of debate/conversation go in new directions.

if you are out to "win", then i think you miss out on the real fun of a debate, and that is having to stretch your brain, think on your feet, and consider ideas and angles that you may not have previously considered. this only works if you are willing to truly consider another person's points, think about how they work in the context of what you are debating, and take on their points in a logical fashion, rather than just emotionally.

personally, i think anything that challenges our brains and knocks them out of their usual patterns is a good thing. but we sometimes get so caught up in the pursuit of the ends, that we forget the method of getting there can be even more enlightening.

(We cannot have a debate on whether debate leads to the truth if we have no definition of the truth.)

I agree that debate will not lead to the truth; this does not mean that debate is futile.

The truth is an intangible goal to be aimed at but never to be achieved so debate will never end in the truth which is why debate never ends.

Debate does provide a lot of subsidiary answers, kind of courtesy cars that will get us by till the truth arrives. It allows us to express our views intelligently and through entering debate we can at least allow ourselves a glimpse of what the truth might be. it is a tool that we have developed to allow us to progress, it is not futile as its goal is not to provide the truth.

Parson wrote:that's a different discussion.

this one is about the futility of debate.

if everybody wants to concede, i'm open to changing the topic.

Hang on if people need to concede doesn't that mean you're debating?

I totally usurped your points earlier...sorry but no-one needs to concede but if they were going to you should...

your above arrogance is not consistent with your hippie ethos...

Parson wrote:

dTruk wrote:closed minded debates with the intention to just to 'win' or disprove the other person arent useful....even when the 'facts' are available.

what percentage of debates don't fit this description though. what you just described is the first thing they teach you in debate class. it does not matter who has the truth.

your right , debates do fit that description, but in some cases, what might start as a 'debate' can transform into a discussion. even though the discussion has its routes in debate, it is no longer a debate.

if it didnt matter who had the truth then the 'debate' wouldnt happen in the first place.

think more about less and less about more.

sapphic_beats wrote:

Parson wrote:truth comes from all sorts of ways.

debate is not one of them.

i think the essential problem i have with this is the assumption that debate is necessarily supposed to end with one person winning and that winning means thinking that what you have to say is the "truth".

i find true debate (as in, not keeping score, but a good "discussument") completely valuable as a way to hear ideas that challenge me, push me to think outside my own ideas, make me respond by thinking on my feet, and sometimes helps me articulate my viewpoints in ways i don't do by just thinking in my own head, but only by letting the free flow of debate/conversation go in new directions.

if you are out to "win", then i think you miss out on the real fun of a debate, and that is having to stretch your brain, think on your feet, and consider ideas and angles that you may not have previously considered. this only works if you are willing to truly consider another person's points, think about how they work in the context of what you are debating, and take on their points in a logical fashion, rather than just emotionally.

personally, i think anything that challenges our brains and knocks them out of their usual patterns is a good thing. but we sometimes get so caught up in the pursuit of the ends, that we forget the method of getting there can be even more enlightening.

referring to the chomsky quote, and the established necessity of need for limits on debate, it is inevitable that the presuppositions of a system are reinforced due to the inherent nature of a limited debate. by assuming there is free-thinking going on, the need for free thinking is satiated and nothing "new" is gained.

edit: one more time for your mind
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. "

Noam Chomsky

Piston wrote:

Parson wrote:that's a different discussion.

this one is about the futility of debate.

if everybody wants to concede, i'm open to changing the topic.

Hang on if people need to concede doesn't that mean you're debating?

I totally usurped your points earlier...sorry but no-one needs to concede but if they were going to you should...

your above arrogance is not consistent with your hippie ethos...

you're on a rampage and aren't making much sense today. try breathing slowly for a while and come back to us.

I really enjoy debate; although I tend to avoid it on forums. Discussion and debate allows me to trade arguments and ideas with others and enables me to question my own ideas and opinions. For me it's a personal thing, a search for the truth within myself, but not an absolute.

EDIT: Ok, what Sapphic said!

dTruk wrote:

Parson wrote:

dTruk wrote:closed minded debates with the intention to just to 'win' or disprove the other person arent useful....even when the 'facts' are available.

what percentage of debates don't fit this description though. what you just described is the first thing they teach you in debate class. it does not matter who has the truth.

your right , debates do fit that description, but in some cases, what might start as a 'debate' can transform into a discussion. even though the discussion has its routes in debate, it is no longer a debate.

if it didnt matter who had the truth then the 'debate' wouldnt happen in the first place.

as a catalyst for discussion, debate can have value. as a tool for proving anything, it is useless.

Parson wrote:

Piston wrote:

Parson wrote:that's a different discussion.

this one is about the futility of debate.

if everybody wants to concede, i'm open to changing the topic.

Hang on if people need to concede doesn't that mean you're debating?

I totally usurped your points earlier...sorry but no-one needs to concede but if they were going to you should...

your above arrogance is not consistent with your hippie ethos...

you're on a rampage and aren't making much sense today. try breathing slowly for a while and come back to us.

keep telling yourself that

It's your opinion that I'm making no sense after all...

please keep being as you are..It's entertaining but you also seem a little closed minded to say the least for someone that preaches a message of openness

let's say i walk down the same side walk to the store every single day for 30 years.

then lets say i took another path that turns out to be way awesomer. and i get there. actually i get to a much better store. with better products and better prices.

and i go to tell people about this path, and they tell me it is not real. then they try to tell me about the path i've been on for 30 years.

then lets say i don't give a shit about somebody saying the exact same thing i've been experiencing for 30 years. then they call me closed minded.

haha then they wanna debate.

Parson wrote:

sapphic_beats wrote:

Parson wrote:truth comes from all sorts of ways.

debate is not one of them.

i think the essential problem i have with this is the assumption that debate is necessarily supposed to end with one person winning and that winning means thinking that what you have to say is the "truth".

i find true debate (as in, not keeping score, but a good "discussument") completely valuable as a way to hear ideas that challenge me, push me to think outside my own ideas, make me respond by thinking on my feet, and sometimes helps me articulate my viewpoints in ways i don't do by just thinking in my own head, but only by letting the free flow of debate/conversation go in new directions.

if you are out to "win", then i think you miss out on the real fun of a debate, and that is having to stretch your brain, think on your feet, and consider ideas and angles that you may not have previously considered. this only works if you are willing to truly consider another person's points, think about how they work in the context of what you are debating, and take on their points in a logical fashion, rather than just emotionally.

personally, i think anything that challenges our brains and knocks them out of their usual patterns is a good thing. but we sometimes get so caught up in the pursuit of the ends, that we forget the method of getting there can be even more enlightening.

referring to the chomsky quote, and the established necessity of need for limits on debate, it is inevitable that the presuppositions of a system are reinforced due to the inherent nature of a limited debate. by assuming there is free-thinking going on, the need for free thinking is satiated and nothing "new" is gained.

well here i think it is essential to ask, what limits and who is doing the limiting? if we are talking about presidential debates, or debates that happen within the confines of the media, or even debates that happen in educational facilities, then yes: the presuppositions of the system are firmly entrenched, and rarely is there any progress (although i still believe the action of making our brains work is still valuable).

but i have a hard time with this chomsky quote (and i agree with noam a good chunk of the time) covering the width and breadth of philosophical debates, political debates and the like, when amongst people who stand to make no personal, political or profit gains, done simply for the purpose of expanding their minds and delving deeper into thought. to me, the PURPOSE of good, healthy debate is to specifically challenge the presuppositions and the accepted patterns of thought, and to force onesself to think outside of what is believed, and find new angles on the points being discussed.

i can't tell you how many times a good debate has sent me down new avenues of thinking, forcing me to delve even deeper into both my own views and the views of those i was debating, and led to a better understanding of my own thoughts, and those of my "opponents" (for lack of a better word). but again, the key is being willing not only to think, but to LISTEN.

i tend to think of debate as more of a philosophical tool, meant to encourage thinking, find those systems of thought that imprison the way we think, and move past them. i have said it before and i will say it again: sometimes it is necessary to envision change and new methods of perception in order to begin to make them real. is that truth? well i am not so arrogant as to presume that i "know" truth, but i think it's a necessary process of human evolution.

Parson wrote:let's say i walk down the same side walk to the store every single day for 30 years.

then lets say i took another path that turns out to be way awesomer. and i get there. actually i get to a much better store. with better products and better prices.

and i go to tell people about this path, and they tell me it is not real. then they try to tell me about the path i've been on for 30 years.

then lets say i don't give a shit about somebody saying the exact same thing i've been experiencing for 30 years. then they call me closed minded.

ok great I'm happy to listen as it's interesting but you run the risk of alienating people with your current approach imho

every single debate ever has limitations put on it.

that means that in order for two people to have any kind of effective debate, they've got to be coming from relatively close proximity, paradigm-wise.

otherwise, there is absolutely no point.

Piston wrote:

Parson wrote:let's say i walk down the same side walk to the store every single day for 30 years.

then lets say i took another path that turns out to be way awesomer. and i get there. actually i get to a much better store. with better products and better prices.

and i go to tell people about this path, and they tell me it is not real. then they try to tell me about the path i've been on for 30 years.

then lets say i don't give a shit about somebody saying the exact same thing i've been experiencing for 30 years. then they call me closed minded.

ok great I'm happy to listen as it's interesting but you run the risk of alienating people with your current approach imho

i run the risk of alienating people by making dubstep and not rap.
i just do what i do.

i appreciate your input though. i hope you have a better day.

Parson wrote:

Piston wrote:

Parson wrote:let's say i walk down the same side walk to the store every single day for 30 years.

then lets say i took another path that turns out to be way awesomer. and i get there. actually i get to a much better store. with better products and better prices.

and i go to tell people about this path, and they tell me it is not real. then they try to tell me about the path i've been on for 30 years.

then lets say i don't give a shit about somebody saying the exact same thing i've been experiencing for 30 years. then they call me closed minded.

ok great I'm happy to listen as it's interesting but you run the risk of alienating people with your current approach imho

i run the risk of alienating people by making dubstep and not rap.
i just do what i do.

i appreciate your input though. i hope you have a better day.

I'm not having a bad day my friend but thanks for your concern...

Your music is just there for people to like or not like....are you the same when given feedback regarding your approach to production?

lets not go there. i don't remember you always behaving this way. i was just assuming you were having a bad day.

it still sounds like too many of us are trying to win a debate

people who want to debate all the time are like that dog that keeps coming back with the stick for you to throw it and you're like fuck off i just threw it 5000 times i don't want to play i'm just tryna live.

Parson wrote:people who want to debate all the time are like that dog that keeps coming back with the stick for you to throw it and you're like fuck off i just threw it 5000 times i don't want to play i'm just tryna live.

remember that the stick and the person repeat their actions just as much as the dog.