Dubstepforum.com

Parson wrote:do you think it is possible to have a discussion with a bunch of implied ad hominem

I don't know, you should try not using any and see what happens.

And fwiw, I wasn't implying any ad hominem. I was offering a characterization of your position based on what you've said so far. If it's not an accurate characterization say what your position is and how your previous statements jive with it.

i think all the good points have been made already

debates are very fruitful. I am right.

Parson wrote:i think all the good points have been made already

wow ! you mean it's all figured out already? except for the HOW of everything, since they are still figuring that out in the 11th density.

btw, you absolutely sound like a 7th day adventist or even a creationist. heard of a crocaduck before?

Parson wrote: the world has never been more miserable than with the current paradigm.

REAL truth. and quoting ram dass and talking about aliens without anything but speculation and personal anecdote doesn't help anyone.

you really want to help people? teach them useful skills.

Parson wrote:if somebody said something i hadn't considered before they would get recognition for that, but if you wanna tell me about something i'm intimately familiar with, i probably won't acknowledge it. it is not that it is being ignored. it is that i already know it.

i'm pretty sure our ancestors thought the earth was flat too.

DEBATE

wikipeadia wrote:Debate (American English) or debating (British English) is a formal method of interactive and position representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, which only examine the consistency from axiom, and factual argument, which only examine what is or isn't the case. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy as well as some emotional appeal to audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting superior "context" and/or framework of the issue.

In formal debating contest, there are rules enabling people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact. Informal debate is a common occurrence, but the quality and depth of a debate improves with knowledge and skill of its participants as debaters. Deliberative bodies such as parliaments, legislative assemblies, and meetings of all sorts engage in debates. The outcome of a debate may be decided by audience vote, by judges, or by some combination of the two. Formal debates between candidates for elected office, such as the leaders debates and the U.S. presidential election debates, are common in democracies.

ARGUMENT

wikipeadia wrote:In logic, an argument is a set of one or more declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises; an inductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is supported by the premises.

Each premise and the conclusion are only either true or false, not ambiguous. The sentences composing an argument are referred to as being either true or false, not as being valid or invalid; arguments are referred to as being valid or invalid, not as being true or false. Some authors refer to the premises and conclusion using the terms declarative sentence, statement, proposition, sentence, or even indicative utterance. The reason for the variety is concern about the ontological significance of the terms, proposition in particular. Whichever term is used, each premise and the conclusion must be capable of being true or false and nothing else: they are truthbearers

Which of these are we talking about? Seems like a clarification would do some good, even if only for myself.

If talking about the former, then a debate is merely a forum to present your argument and let the observers take from it what they will, with both sides believing they hold the absolute truth.

If talking about the later, then it is a useful tool for defining the truth within a set of paramaters. If the truth cannot be defined within a set of parameters, then how can it be defined as the truth at all?

You can call an argument a debate, but its still an argument. And an argument by this definition is wholy different than two people shouting at each other with the intent to prove the other wrong, which is what some seem to be defining a debate as.

So are we talking a debate as in presidential debate, high school forensics team debate type debate?

Or are we talking argument as in this is what I have found to be true or false, and this is why?

Or are we talking discussion, as in what we are all having right now? Discussions seem to have the most potential for finding truth in the sense of an absolute truth, as it is a free flowing exchange of ideas. Even if you were to have a discussion with someone who you thought was wrong about the topic on every level, you should be able to see why they think the way they do (if the participants can stay open minded, even while disagreeing) and from that gain some understanding of how others think, which would lead to finding more of the truth.





If I walk the same path for 30 years and found a new one that was unbelievably better, to borrow Parson's analogy, when I told people about it and they told me it didnt exsist and refered me back to the path I had been originally taking, I would want to walk both paths with that person.
Cause usually when you walk the same path for so long, you tend to tune out that which is unnessary to you. The other person may see something there you didnt due to a new perspective.

And inversely, if that person is willing to walk the new path you have found with you, maybe you can show them undeniably that it does exsist. But if you just try to tell them where it is they may not see it. I mean, it took you 30 years to find it for yourself, right?

Its like listening to a song you love and know inside and out on a new pair of speakers and hearing something you didnt before...

All an opinion and effort to understand... all I know as true is that I know nothing.

oxford's debate group is 182 years old.
http://www.oxford-union.org/about_us

cambridge's debating group is over 200 years old.
http://www.cus.org/resources/

i think its safe to say that debate is not only important, but its at the foundation of modern society.

my point about chomsky stands. [bold type]

malcolm x at oxford union.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dmzaaf-9aHQ

Parson wrote:

nope! you're like algebra

Mr Hyde wrote:I suppose if you debate but no-one changes their mind then there isn't much point...but on the whole people are open to hearing new ideas and then debate why they agree/disagree with them, usually someone will change their views a bit.

I think human ego can cloud the benefits of debate. From my own experience if I pick up something in a debate I'll probably keep arguing my previous point. Maybe because I dont want to be wrong or maybe just to confirm to myself that what I've been told is valid. The next time the subject is brought up I'll have that knowledge and use it.

Tomity wrote:

Mr Hyde wrote:I suppose if you debate but no-one changes their mind then there isn't much point...but on the whole people are open to hearing new ideas and then debate why they agree/disagree with them, usually someone will change their views a bit.

I think human ego can cloud the benefits of debate. From my own experience if I pick up something in a debate I'll probably keep arguing my previous point. Maybe because I dont want to be wrong or maybe just to confirm to myself that what I've been told is valid. The next time the subject is brought up I'll have that knowledge and use it.

But to some extent you have to try anyway.

I mean, we can talk for days about the problems of debate, but what alternatives have we got if we actually want our perspectives to be challenged?

Apart from relying on someone who claims to be infallible to tell us what to think?

Tomity wrote:

Mr Hyde wrote:I suppose if you debate but no-one changes their mind then there isn't much point...but on the whole people are open to hearing new ideas and then debate why they agree/disagree with them, usually someone will change their views a bit.

I think human ego can cloud the benefits of debate. From my own experience if I pick up something in a debate I'll probably keep arguing my previous point. Maybe because I dont want to be wrong or maybe just to confirm to myself that what I've been told is valid. The next time the subject is brought up I'll have that knowledge and use it.

yeah i feel you on this too.

though i believe strongly in face to face debating or face to face conversations... the anonymity of online debates turn it into a grueling cockfight. i think people should have to look someone else in the eye and that that will keep even a heated debate most on the level.

i hope it takes a longer amount of time to resort to name calling and cheap tactics when a point cannot be made in person than online.

even still better, if a participant feels he or she has been bested, to concede and say he or she has a new understanding of the point. that seems more like it would happen in a discussion, even an enthusiastic and dynamic one.

a debate will either confirm your viewpoint or challenge you to accept another. those are the goals. belittling and degradation don't have a place in this, no matter how common it is they appear in an online forum/debate.

bellybelle wrote: a debate will either confirm your viewpoint or challenge you to accept another. those are the goals. belittling and degradation don't have a place in this, no matter how common it is they appear in an online forum/debate.

I think its a shame that it comes down to that. I personally find it very difficult to get worked up in this forum, at least not to the point where I'm genuinely angry.

I also get a lot out of the conversations we all have and take on a lot of info.

With this thread for example. When Parson stated that debate was pointless I immediately disagreed with him. But the point about it becoming an ego fest and that whoever can articulate themselves coming off better is a valid one. However, I still think that under the right circumstances its really useful and I cant really think of another medium which has given me so much info.

Tomity wrote:I personally find it very difficult to get worked up in this forum, at least not to the point where I'm genuinely angry.

Should give some classess to select members of the forum. Especially those born with strict morals.

Ashley wrote:

Tomity wrote:I personally find it very difficult to get worked up in this forum, at least not to the point where I'm genuinely angry.

Should give some classess to select members of the forum. Especially those born with strict morals.

You could put me in that catagory as well if you wanted to. As I've said, I just cant get worked up about things and I cant fully judge where people are coming from with certain written statements. Text is hard to read sometimes....

Tomity wrote:

Ashley wrote:

Tomity wrote:I personally find it very difficult to get worked up in this forum, at least not to the point where I'm genuinely angry.

Should give some classess to select members of the forum. Especially those born with strict morals.

You could put me in that catagory as well if you wanted to. As I've said, I just cant get worked up about things and I cant fully judge where people are coming from with certain written statements. Text is hard to read sometimes....

I find it difficult how people can get offended by text on the internet. I suppose they need to be dragged through /b/ and then maybe they would have a less izan approach.