NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I'll come right out and say it. There are two types of people who annoy me in a debate:
1. Those that debate with the goal of winning.
You know those people that no matter how reasonable your points are they attack you anyway as if admitting your point is reasonable their entire world will crumble.

2. Those who are just trying to never be wrong.
Some might be surprised but I actually get far more annoyed by this one. In effort to not be knocked down they never stand up for anything. They offer wishy-washy platitudes that sound profound so long as you don't actually think about them and realize they say nothing at all. My brother is one of these. He claims to be Socratic. Socrates called the fact that we can't know anything the greatest wisdom, but don't mistake that to mean we can't believe anything. Socrates was incredibly bold, a fact that killed him. He had strong beliefs and they showed a great deal of wisdom about human interaction and the limitations of human perception. To pretend that debating like a loose noodle is anything like Socrates is like saying Hitler was Christ-like because they were both men.

Anyway, what annoys you about the way people debate? What skills are you impressed with? Please don't start bitching about the debators you don't like or this thread will be shut down faster than a science class in Kansas.

Straw men annoy me, particularly those that consist of attacking just a minor part of the argument, and then considering the entire argument attacked.

Well, most people these days don't truly "debate", anyway. They just state an ideological position, don't bother to justify it logically or provide supporting evidence, and simply state that all who disagree with them are clearly wrong simply because they disagree with them. That's not debate, that's just a shouting match, and whoever shouts the loudest is proclaimed the winner.

:rolleyes:

I somewhat disagree with the first rule. It is not bad to enter a debate with a goal of winning. You should come in with a position that you have, and are willing to defend. The problem is when you are not willing to listen to the other side, and accept another view as possibly correct based on their arguments and/or evidence.

Far to often, what starts off as debate evolves into a shouting match.

I say we do it like the Mongols did. After each round, we'll all take a shot of vodka (the mongols used fermented yaks' milk). Then, debate shall never evolve into a true shouting match, because we'll all be nice and drunk!

People who debate from ideological or theological standpoints irritate the crap outta me! No amount of reason or logic or persuasion will deter them from stict adherence to the preconcieved notions they adopt out of comittment to their faith or dogma. IMHO, most of them should be comitted! :D

Ok, I'll come right out and say it. There are two types of people who annoy me in a debate:
1. Those that debate with the goal of winning.
If they weren't aiming to win, then it's not a debate, it's a discussion (which is altogether much friendlier).

I somewhat disagree with the first rule. It is not bad to enter a debate with a goal of winning. You should come in with a position that you have, and are willing to defend. The problem is when you are not willing to listen to the other side, and accept another view as possibly correct based on their arguments and/or evidence.

I totally disagree. You aren't trying to defeat anyone. The goal should be to exchange ideas and to learn more about your own position. If in the end you still logically end at your position, great, but if you set out only to defend your position then you are setting yourself up to reject anything you deem is an attack on that position rather than analyzing the evidence and landing where it takes you.

Far to often, what starts off as debate evolves into a shouting match.

I say we do it like the Mongols did. After each round, we'll all take a shot of vodka (the mongols used fermented yaks' milk). Then, debate shall never evolve into a true shouting match, because we'll all be nice and drunk!

Right. Then it can just be a fist fight. I don't know what parties you go to, but I don't see any evidence to suggest that alcohol prevents arguments.

People who debate from ideological or theological standpoints irritate the crap outta me! No amount of reason or logic or persuasion will deter them from stict adherence to the preconcieved notions they adopt out of comittment to their faith or dogma. IMHO, most of them should be comitted! :D

I debate from ideological and theological standpoints all the time and I hardly think people would find that to be true of me. One can have beliefs and not be dogmatic. Many people on this forum have made me reconsider my positions.

I totally disagree. You aren't trying to defeat anyone. The goal should be to exchange ideas and to learn more about your own position. If in the end you still logically end at your position, great, but if you set out only to defend your position then you are setting yourself up to reject anything you deem is an attack on that position rather than analyzing the evidence and landing where it takes you.
You missunderstand. I definitely agree that you need to be open to other points of view and arguments, but if you don't come in with the goal of defending an argument, then you have not motivation to defend it. Then it is no longer a debate.
You shoulld defend your argument, but you need to be open to the otherside, and seeing if they have a better argument.

I hate people who never admit that they are wrong. Even if you manage to prove they're wrong (or they suddenly realise that they are wrong), the suddenly change their idea and make out like that's what their point was all along. :headbang:

I debate from ideological and theological standpoints all the time and I hardly think people would find that to be true of me. One can have beliefs and not be dogmatic. Many people on this forum have made me reconsider my positions.
Then you are among the few people who argue from theological standpoints who I can respect. If you are willing to look at other points of view, and still stick to the religious one, that is ok.

You missunderstand. I definitely agree that you need to be open to other points of view and arguments, but if you don't come in with the goal of defending an argument, then you have not motivation to defend it. Then it is no longer a debate.
You shoulld defend your argument, but you need to be open to the otherside, and seeing if they have a better argument.

You should support your point, not with the goal of winning but with the goal of further exploring it. The best and most enlightening debates I've ever been in, I found out I was wrong. I actually love to be proven wrong because it means someone gave me information I didn't previously have and the new information brought me closer to the truth. So I actually enter a debate with the hopes someone will examine all of my evidence and show me how it can be seen differently using both logic and evidence. That's right, I enter every debate hoping I'll be wrong (generally not a 180 degrees from right but a slight shift here and there). In another thread in the last twelve hours GnI gave me a new way to look at omnitience and I think his way is a much more reasonable way of interpreting it. That's much better than having defended my old position. What more could one want from our time?

I hate people who never admit that they are wrong. Even if you manage to prove they're wrong (or they suddenly realise that they are wrong), the suddenly change their idea and make out like that's what their point was all along. :headbang:

Ha, yes. This is one of the tactics that makes me want to just walk away from debate altogether.

Then you are among the few people who argue from theological standpoints who I can respect. If you are willing to look at other points of view, and still stick to the religious one, that is ok.

I appreciate that. I don't recall ever encountering you before, but if you hold the views you suggest then I look forward to meeting up with you in the future.

Perhaps I am from a different school of thought in reguards to debate, but the way I have always approached it involves the sides of the debate presenting their viewpoints and subsequently taking turns attacking the viewpoint of the other side and defending their own viewpoint with the purpose of swaying a crowd who are critically analyzing the arguments of both sides. The winner of the debate is the one who sways the crowd, not neccessarily the one who is right.

If two people are simply trying to convince each other of their own respective viewpoints, it is not a debate. It is a discussion, argument, proslytization, whatever you want to call it, but not debate. Granted, I come from a very formal style of debating. Anything I do here is merely practice as there is no objective audience to be swayed. Although, I would be very interested in setting up a formal debate on NS.

As for what irritates me, particular ideological viewpoints or religious views do not bother me at all. Every person is allowed to have their position and argue it as much as they would like. It does not matter if they will not bend to the views of others. That is an admirable quality in a person you want supporting your viewpoint. I get irritated when someone responds to a statement made several pages back in a thread in the same way that someone else has already responded. I know it takes time to read every post in a thread, but it is common curtesy. After all, the only person you make to appear foolish is yourself.

Ha, yes. This is one of the tactics that makes me want to just walk away from debate altogether.
Is that not the point?

Perhaps I am from a different school of thought in reguards to debate, but the way I have always approached it involves the sides of the debate presenting their viewpoints and subsequently taking turns attacking the viewpoint of the other side and defending their own viewpoint with the purpose of swaying a crowd who are critically analyzing the arguments of both sides. The winner of the debate is the one who sways the crowd, not neccessarily the one who is right.
Yes and basketball is a game played with five people per side and referees. That game we play on the playground is called boggledoogle. Where do you think the formalized type of debate came from? It didn't spring completely developed from the head of Zeus. It was developed among people who were having debates and eventually a sport based on the art of debate arose. However, while competitive debate focuses on style by its nature, informal debate is centered around the exchange of information.

It annoys me when people argue and argue a point....

Then, you present an evidence that shoots the hull out of their argument... and they:

change the subject completely. The 'other subject' is never raised again, and pointedly ignored each time someone else raises it.

You should support your point, not with the goal of winning but with the goal of further exploring it.
Ok, I can buy this. I like the idea of coming into the debate supporting a point of view, but with the goal of learning more. Any time of have started a thread (and there are not many times), it has been with the goal of learning other points of view (at least I like to think that it was).

I enjoy a good debate. I hardly ever get one around here :( Most of what I see around here is
"what do you think about this?"
" I think that is wrong"
" then you are wrong"
"why?"
"because that isn't the exact same thing I think"

Luckily I am able to get good debate elsewhere.

I am annoyed most by people who cite references that don't exist, like claiming the constitution says something it doesn't, or taking Bible verses out of context to prove thier point, and then when you put things in context they get mad.

I can take things out of context too, to prove just about any point you want.

ex>
A feast is made for laughter, and wine makes the life glad; and money is the answer for all things. Ecclesiastes 10:19

Well, most people these days don't truly "debate", anyway. They just state an ideological position, don't bother to justify it logically or provide supporting evidence, and simply state that all who disagree with them are clearly wrong simply because they disagree with them. That's not debate, that's just a shouting match, and whoever shouts the loudest is proclaimed the winner.

:rolleyes:

Hmm, i agree however can you imagine how tiresome that would get in those endless communism VS capitalism or God VS athiesm? Besides people would just post the same pre-written threads without editing them turning it into a living archive of pre-argued discussion. Anyway lots of people don't read big entries... i don't ;)

You should support your point, not with the goal of winning but with the goal of further exploring it. The best and most enlightening debates I've ever been in, I found out I was wrong. I actually love to be proven wrong because it means someone gave me information I didn't previously have and the new information brought me closer to the truth. So I actually enter a debate with the hopes someone will examine all of my evidence and show me how it can be seen differently using both logic and evidence. That's right, I enter every debate hoping I'll be wrong (generally not a 180 degrees from right but a slight shift here and there). In another thread in the last twelve hours GnI gave me a new way to look at omnitience and I think his way is a much more reasonable way of interpreting it. That's much better than having defended my old position. What more could one want from our time?

See, you see things much the same way as me.

If I go into debate with an idea, and someone can show where that idea is flawed, I am GRATEFUL to them, for ridding me of the presence of a flawed premise.

Right. Then it can just be a fist fight. I don't know what parties you go to, but I don't see any evidence to suggest that alcohol prevents arguments.

But we would all be drunk, and thats what counts!

I am annoyed most by people who cite references that don't exist, like claiming the constitution says something it doesn't, or taking Bible verses out of context to prove thier point, and then when you put things in context they get mad.
Definitely agree with you there. I loved (by loved I mean hated) this one debate I got in, where someone was saying that the UN had not justified action in Bosnia. I told them that yes, in fact it did, and continued to find the UN Security Council Resolution calling for a peacekeeping force to be created in Bosnia. I both posted the text of the resolution, and a link to it. The guy kept aying that I was wrong, and that the UN had never authroized any action in Bosnia. He never put up any evidence or any references.

If you are going to cite something, do the work and find out where it came from, and provide a link so that we can all see itfor ourselves. This can even be done with things like the bible (its the internet for gods sake, someone has to have put the bible online).

Let's debate about debate itself
No.

No.
Ignoring your post, it is pointless. Obviously other people are having a nice debate on it, and if you had read the thread you would have seen that. If you don't want to debate about it, then just don't post anything.

See, you see things much the same way as me.

If I go into debate with an idea, and someone can show where that idea is flawed, I am GRATEFUL to them, for ridding me of the presence of a flawed premise.

Exactly, I can't imagine a better result. Yes, it's nice to be respected and blah, blah, blah, but in the end given the choice of educating the other 'side' or educating myself, I'm selfish. For the record, I thoroughly enjoy teaching because I seem to have a way of presenting ideas that makes it easy to understand, generally without doing a disservice to the idea itself. Perhaps you've noticed. Math is my favorite one, though we hardly delve into it here. I've turned a few F math students into A students simply by showing them that advance mathematics isn't the mysticism that some teachers present it as. I wish I had the patience to become accredited (sp?) because I would love to write a math book.

Definitely agree with you there. I loved (by loved I mean hated) this one debate I got in, where someone was saying that the UN had not justified action in Bosnia. I told them that yes, in fact it did, and continued to find the UN Security Council Resolution calling for a peacekeeping force to be created in Bosnia. I both posted the text of the resolution, and a link to it. The guy kept aying that I was wrong, and that the UN had never authroized any action in Bosnia. He never put up any evidence or any references.

If you are going to cite something, do the work and find out where it came from, and provide a link so that we can all see itfor ourselves. This can even be done with things like the bible (its the internet for gods sake, someone has to have put the bible online).

Actually, I find it amusing that some people complain that people like TCT offer too much information. TCT works hard to provide sources and references to support his point and people get irritated that they have to look at them rather than just stating things based on hearsay and guessing.

Ignoring your post, it is pointless. Obviously other people are having a nice debate on it, and if you had read the thread you would have seen that. If you don't want to debate about it, then just don't post anything.
but are you really ignoring it if you respond? the first thing I learned when my kids were toddlers is that if you are going to ignore behavior you have to really ignore it, no comment at all.

but are you really ignoring it if you respond? the first thing I learned when my kids were toddlers is that if you are going to ignore behavior you have to really ignore it, no comment at all.

HA! I thought the same thing, but didn't post because then I'd be guilty of extending it. Now, it appears that the post was useful because we get to discuss how to deal with such posters. Thank you, Argesia, for posting a post with no value to help us learn this lesson, which was clearly your point. Very wise, indeed.

Those that debate with the goal of winning.

That annoys me most of all. I don't come here to get involved in a pissing contest.

Those who are just trying to never be wrong.

I think you make a good point here, and I agree with Mannatopia in that if you go to a debate you need to be defending a position. Otherwise, you aren't offering anything valuable. No one learns anything when you are just petting your own ego.

But, personally, I am a centrist on a number of issues. I like to take a position, but often for me a particular position is difficult to know at any given time. Often, the answer lies in drawing arbitratry but flexible lines in distinguishing various degrees of this and that.

It's hard to sound honest and firm when you are interested in exploring an issue.

but are you really ignoring it if you respond? the first thing I learned when my kids were toddlers is that if you are going to ignore behavior you have to really ignore it, no comment at all.
Point taken.

***Goes into the corner to contemplate how I fell into the trap of paying attention to something I was trying to ignore, and therefore vindicating it.***

Ignoring your post, it is pointless. Obviously other people are having a nice debate on it, and if you had read the thread you would have seen that. If you don't want to debate about it, then just don't post anything.
I won't.

That annoys me most of all. I don't come here to get involved in a pissing contest.



I think you make a good point here, and I agree with Mannatopia in that if you go to a debate you need to be defending a position. Otherwise, you aren't offering anything valuable. No one learns anything when you are just petting your own ego.

But, personally, I am a centrist on a number of issues. I like to take a position, but often for me a particular position is difficult to know at any given time. Often, the answer lies in drawing arbitratry but flexible lines in distinguishing various degrees of this and that.

It's hard to sound honest and firm when you are interested in exploring an issue.

I prefer supporting a position, as defending denotates your goal is to thwart all attacks by any acceptable means. Supporting suggests offering up all the information you used to reach your position.

I prefer supporting a position, as defending denotates your goal is to thwart all attacks by any acceptable means. Supporting suggests offering up all the information you used to reach your position.

Well... we don't want to go to far down the road of semantics. :D

Supporting is in line with what I meant when I said defending. Not a sort of dogmatic counterattack, but a well reasoned and rational argument for a proposition. If you are going to support an argument you will have to anticipate and repel attacks on that argument. I think the distinguishing characteristic between good support and bad support is that good support is done in good faith. That you don't have a personal stake in the matter but you honestly believe that you have a sound and valid argument. Of course, good faith requires that you be equally introspective, questioning and developing your own argument in light of counter-arguments.

I hate it when people take a part of a sentence and use it as proof for their side. For example ....

Hitler was Christ-like because they were both men.

This proves Jocabia to be a bastard. ;)

I hate it when people take a part of a sentence and use it as proof for their side. For example ....



This proves Jocabia to be a bastard. ;)

Actually what proves me to be a bastard is that my mother's husband (who was also her husband at the time of my conception) shares no DNA with me.

Actually what proves me to be a bastard is that my mother's husband (who was also her husband at the time of my conception) shares no DNA with me.
I guess by the strict definition of the word, that would make you a bastard.

***Points :eek: It's a bastard, everybody run away***
j/k :D

When I try to debate, I find that I am woefully poor at it. So mainly I try to stick to discussions, where I try to understand the other person, try to get them to understand me, and see if we can reach a reasonable conclusion.

I rarely reach a conclusion, but I do refine my views and beliefs almost every time.

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus,Wittgenstein

Should be required reading for being alive.

I say we do it like the Mongols did. After each round, we'll all take a shot of vodka (the mongols used fermented yaks' milk). Then, debate shall never evolve into a true shouting match, because we'll all be nice and drunk!

That is a great idea, we start up a thread, and after every page, those involved take a shot.

Yes and basketball is a game played with five people per side and referees. That game we play on the playground is called boggledoogle. Where do you think the formalized type of debate came from? It didn't spring completely developed from the head of Zeus. It was developed among people who were having debates and eventually a sport based on the art of debate arose. However, while competitive debate focuses on style by its nature, informal debate is centered around the exchange of information.

I was simply noting that I never see that particular style of debate practiced here on the forums. Perhaps it has been practiced between the time in which I ceased posting or reading this forum and the time of my recent return, but I never saw it then and I really do not see it now. I personally wish that type of debate went on here, as it is the type I favor.

Also, what type of game is this boggledoogle you speak of?