NationStates Jolt Archive

I've gotten in 2 debates since 4:00 PM EST time today. And, that gave me an idea. "Why not make a topic so that everyone can become better at debating?".

So, assmuing you know the fallacies and how to avoid and spot them, let's continue.

I will mention a topic, and you have to defend it while I attack it. After a few debate posts, I will say "switch sides" and you will attack it while I defend it.

If enough people agree, I'll start it. also, we can make "debate teams", with mopre than one person attacking/defending the debate topic.

I want to debate physics, specifically, the age-old question "Is flatus ignition possible? Or will the effect of re-uptake prove it to be impossible?

I've never really understood the point of learning how to debate. Just be right, and point out the mistakes of others.

I want to debate physics, specifically, the age-old question "Is flatus ignition possible? Or will the effect of re-uptake prove it to be impossible?

Whoo, I can't get into that one with you, lol.

I'm leaning more towards current events.

I've never really understood the point of learning how to debate. Just be right, and point out the mistakes of others.

I think you're completely wrong!

(Switch!)

I think you're completely right!

I've never really understood the point of learning how to debate. Just be right, and point out the mistakes of others.

But I can't just say: "You should agree with me because you said this and it's wrong".

The thing is how to make others believe you (without force, of course).

I think you're completely wrong!

(Switch!)

I think you're completely right!

I agree with this.

I've never really understood the point of learning how to debate. Just be right, and point out the mistakes of others.

You can hold an opinion that you feel is right but still be logically proven wrong. As demonstrated on these forums more times than could possibly be counted, this can happen quite often.

I would say something like the existence of God, but there are too many people who consider the question meaningless to really work that out.

On a side note, since I've been thinking about it:

The same is true of the origin of consciousness or the mind-brain difference; it doesn't really matter if the mind is reducible to physical causes because spiritual experience is, by definition, super-natural and so can't be decisively proven either way.

I agree with this.

By agreeing with this, I don't see how you can prevent Scandinavians from marrying their sheep.

But I can't just say: "You should agree with me because you said this and it's wrong".

The thing is how to make others believe you (without force, of course).

A:"Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position."
M:"Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'"
A:"Yes it is!"
M "No it isn't!"

:D
Seriously, I don't know if this will work...

A:"Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position."
M:"Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'"
A:"Yes it is!"
M "No it isn't!"

:D
Seriously, I don't know if this will work...

lol @ mini-dialouge.

Also, I KNOW this works when you're talking to the person personally (family, in class, etc.). But on message boards, I'm not so sure now, lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

Arguing the other side is effective way to learn because it's hard.

You can hold an opinion that you feel is right but still be logically proven wrong. As demonstrated on these forums more times than could possibly be counted, this can happen quite often.
If I hold an opinion, I must have a good reason. If someone proves me wrong, then I stop holding that position.

But that didn't require debating skills. That required logical skills.

But I can't just say: "You should agree with me because you said this and it's wrong".

The thing is how to make others believe you (without force, of course).
You make them believe you by providing compelling evidence. Or demonstrating the lack of compelling evidence (if you're trying to dissuade rather than persuade).

But demonstrating the lack of compelling evidence doesn't seem to work (this is why religion stiull exists), which therefore demonstrates that most people aren't rational and there's little point arguing with them.

Instead of instructing people to switch sides after an amount of time, just make a thread where people debate from the other side.

I've never really understood the point of learning how to debate. Just be right, and point out the mistakes of others.

Debate is different than just an argument. A debate would never devolve into flame, while an argument usually does... to the point where it seems it's like a requirement.

You make them believe you by providing compelling evidence. Or demonstrating the lack of compelling evidence (if you're trying to dissuade rather than persuade).

But demonstrating the lack of compelling evidence doesn't seem to work (this is why religion stiull exists), which therefore demonstrates that most people aren't rational and there's little point arguing with them.

Define compelling evidence.

Debate is different than just an argument. A debate would never devolve into flame, while an argument usually does... to the point where it seems it's like a requirement.
Any discussion where we're on different sides in an argument.

Any discussion where we're on different sides in an argument.

wrong, Any discussion where we're on different sides CAN BE an argument.

A Debate is structured, organized Arguing. an Argument can include unstructured, un-organized presentations, and even a lack of evidence.

Same difference between a Warrior and a Brawler. both are fighters, but the attitudes are different.

You make them believe you by providing compelling evidence. Or demonstrating the lack of compelling evidence (if you're trying to dissuade rather than persuade).

But demonstrating the lack of compelling evidence doesn't seem to work (this is why religion stiull exists), which therefore demonstrates that most people aren't rational and there's little point arguing with them.

But are you ignoring the audience of a debate? Maybe its not really to change the mind of the person you're arguing with but more to show others why they shouldn't agree with that person.

wrong, Any discussion where we're on different sides CAN BE an argument.

A Debate is structured, organized Arguing. an Argument can include unstructured, un-organized presentations, and even a lack of evidence.
You just defined debating as a subset of arguing, which makes all debates arguments.

You just defined debating as a subset of arguing, which makes all debates arguments.

true, but not all arguments are debates, I wrote that when I was tired. :D

Rule 1: don't debate when you are tired!