Debate : Debating

[NikkiD]

And I believe that is what this is. Gathering and honing skills.

Honing skills can be more easily done with something one is interested in. A football (soccer) player is not likely to go out an learn the skills required for baseball.

Then they will be loyal and biased to that team.
I could change my mind half way thru a debate and recognise I am wrong, then swop sides and use my skills for that opinion/side.

So the skills they learned when they were on the other team are no longer valid? Of course they are. A skill cannot be biased. That would be like saying that because they learned how to score goals playing for their original team, they can't use that skill to score goals for their new team, because that skill was biased to where they learned it. The skill itself has no bias, the player does.

Let me try a different analogy.

When I first learned to use a computer, I learned how to use DOS, WordPerfect, Lotus and dBase. I now use Windows, Word, Excel and Access. I prefer using the newer programs, but I still know how to use the old ones, and knowing the old ones made it easier to learn the new programs. The command to bold text might be in a different place, but it's still bold.

I agree, you have made some very interesting and valid points which I have taken on board.
I don't recall saying you could'nt learn without arguing.

However, you did say that it was better to learn by arguing.

lol, now you know you don't wanna be getting me started on that
And I will now prove my point of this debate by saying I dissagree, if you have the passion there and want it bad enough, you will do whatever it takes.

You just disproved the entire argument you had with me about my son's desire to play only the electric guitar. If he has the passion to play, he'll learn the accoustic. Thank you.

I don't recall denying that either, that is correct.
What I am saying is a debate like this is a good training ground, being given a position to defend will test your strength to hold an argument simply because it's there to be held.

But to what end? What purpose is there to having an argument simply for argument's sake? Does it not give a false impression of yourself to those you are debating?

[Jon L. Obscene]

You just disproved the entire argument you had with me about my son's desire to play only the electric guitar. If he has the passion to play, he'll learn the accoustic. Thank you.

Actually Nikki if you read what I put and think about it with this whole thread.

And I will now prove my point of this debate by saying I dissagree, if you have the passion there and want it bad enough, you will do whatever it takes.

And I did, it worked, you believed that is my belief, when in actual fact you know thats not what I think.

Therefore proving my point you can debate strongly even when you do not agree with what you are saying

At this point I will draw to a close saying that everything I said in this thread was complete bollocks and I maybe agree with 10% of it

Thus proving my overall point That an Argument/point CAN be held even if you don't believe it.
But it is bollocks

But to what end? What purpose is there to having an argument simply for argument's sake? Does it not give a false impression of yourself to those you are debating?

There is no point, JP asked me to, I complied
And peoples impression of a person will never be truely accurate until they have spoken at length in private.

But with that I conceed

Jonno

[Jon L. Obscene]

DP oops, sorry

Jonno

[NikkiD]

You give up too easily. Have you no conviction?

Oops, I forgot, you didn't agree with the side you were debating, thus proving my point that if you don't agree with what you're arguing, you're more likely to give up.

[Jon L. Obscene]

No, I'm just not going any further

If you don't mind? , I in no way mean to dishonor a lady so please accept my apologies as I conceed with dignity

Jonno

[sArA]

Debate for its own sake is valid, as how can one be truly convinced of a particular stance without an understanding of different views and perspectives that can be drawn. Further, each issue has many facets that have their own validity and can be argued, one's opinion is not necessarily important. I would cite the Defence lawyer as a case in point.


(now I suspect I will be called upon to refute the proposal )

[Jon L. Obscene]

Oops, I forgot, you didn't agree with the side you were debating, thus proving my point that if you don't agree with what you're arguing, you're more likely to give up.

Nor did you

I quite like this idea. Considering I know f*ck all about f*ck all, it would be nice to be given an opinion. Although I must say that I am entirely capable of arguing on about f*ck all for hours at a time. Take last night for example, I argued with Chris for two hours about whether or not he had seen King Arthur. I was of course, as always, correct. He had seen it, and fallen asleep part way through. I suppose that would also mean that he was right as well, seeing that he didn't see the part that he'd slept through, although I would never admit this to him, as he must always believe that I am all knowing.

And I've conceeded because I have no argument left

But thankyou Nikki for an enjoyable (if stupid and pointless lol) debate

Jonno

Edit: @JP .... I hope this thread has acheived what you wanted

Edit2 Sara .... Oookay good point you can take over and go head to head against the debate queen up there