Debate : Debating

[Jon L. Obscene]

Say what? :huh:

Jonno :cool:

[Jon L. Obscene]

I think this is an absolutely stupid idea. People want to argue in favour of things which they believe in. They have no interest in getting involved in a debate simply for the exercise.

I think you're wrong.People are allowed tobelieve in what they want even if they know feck all about the sibject at hand :P

Jonno :cool:

[Jon L. Obscene]

How can it be pointless if it exercises the mind?
I think it also keeps a good blood flow due to the general heat of debate exciting a person.
This would be likend to an Extreme sport which seems pointless yet to the sportsman is most enjoyable.

Jonno :cool:

[NikkiD]

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.

[Rat Faced]

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. .

We already know that F*ck is your specialist subject *sigh* :rolleyes:

:wub:

[NikkiD]

I can argue about anything really, just for arguments sake.

[Rat Faced]

No you f*cking can't Nikki :angry:

[NikkiD]

Then you will argue against it

How the hell could this possibly be a good idea? If one has no conviction in a subject, then how can they defend their debates? Wouldn't it be rather boring to have an emotionless debate in which no one believed what they were debating?

[Rat Faced]

How the hell could this possibly be a good idea? If one has no conviction in a subject, then how can they defend their debates? Wouldn't it be rather boring to have an emotionless debate in which no one believed what they were debating?

How?

[Jon L. Obscene]

Whoa no, I ain;t arguing against her, no way, it's not possible to win I tell's ya :ph34r:

Can I be ref? :01:


However cannot the same be said of a debate, or arguement where you argue the point you actually believe in. What possible difference can it make when you are asked to argue from a position you don't agree with.

The difference being that if you believe something you will debate harder and more passionately. If you are simply told to do it the fire and passion you will not have sir.

:lol: I'm actually now confused as to what I'm arguing about :lol:

Seriously :ph34r:

Jonno :cool:

[Jon L. Obscene]

How the hell could this possibly be a good idea? If one has no conviction in a subject, then how can they defend their debates? Wouldn't it be rather boring to have an emotionless debate in which no one believed what they were debating?

ARGH!! :ph34r: someone else agreeing with me :ph34r:

ok deep breaths, not good not good, they just trying to spin you out, stay calm, breath deep......Ahhhhhh :)

Right, I think ......I'll wait til I've figured out what I'm doing before posting any more :helpsmili

Jonno :cool:

[NikkiD]

How?

If one has no opinion invested in the side they are debating, or for that matter, believe the opposite to what they are debating to be true, aren't they more likely to give up the argument much more easily, or perhaps give less informed responses?

[NikkiD]

ARGH!! :ph34r: someone else agreeing with me :ph34r:

ok deep breaths, not good not good, they just trying to spin you out, stay calm, breath deep......Ahhhhhh :)

Right, I think ......I'll wait til I've figured out what I'm doing before posting any more :helpsmili

Jonno :cool:

:lol: I wasn't so much agreeing with you as I was defending the position I was told to defend. :lol:

[Jon L. Obscene]

:blink: Yeah but thats the 5th time it's happend today, people agreeing with what I say :crying: I'm scared

Ok could someone remind me which side I'm on, having read my posts so far I seem to have argued both sides :huh:

Jonno :cool:

[Jon L. Obscene]

Oh I think it's a wonderful idea, the brain power and debating techniques of people entered into these discussions is remarkable.
To see minds of "Lay people" clash and colide with such forced and to fight with so much passion in the heat of a roaring debate is a wonder of the intenet world.

These simple exercises we are doing now is simply training for the real thing.
If a boxer does'nt train he will not win.

If a debater does not train he will not be able to hold his point of view.

Jonno :cool:

[NikkiD]

And how does one hold a point of view that is not his own? Will he not be wandering aimlessly looking for responses, floundering to find the appropriate one, while being torn and wanting to post his own opinion?

[Rat Faced]

If one has no opinion invested in the side they are debating, or for that matter, believe the opposite to what they are debating to be true, aren't they more likely to give up the argument much more easily, or perhaps give less informed responses?

Fair enough, you win.

[Jon L. Obscene]

And how does one hold a point of view that is not his own? Will he not be wandering aimlessly looking for responses, floundering to find the appropriate one, while being torn and wanting to post his own opinion?

Because it hardens the mind to be able to hold his line of arguing while all around will try to trick him.
To say this thread is pointless is to say exercise is pointless.

It's no good charging into a thread like a wild heard of Elephants is no good and will ultimately leave the debater at a loss when it comes to the real thing.



Fair enough, but why not just do it with points you agree with. At least then you may have some knowledge to support the position you are defending. Rather than just doing it for the sake of it, which only misleads those who read your posts.

You gave me the task of arguing the good of this debate. With that comes points I do not agree with but will defend them.
It's part of the process in the training to become a Jedebater :01:

Jonno :cool:

[NikkiD]

Because it hardens the mind to be able to hold his line of arguing while all around will try to trick him.
To say this thread is pointless is to say exercise is pointless.

It's no good charging into a thread like a wild heard of Elephants is no good and will ultimately leave the debater at a loss when it comes to the real thing.

There will be those around that will try to trick someone, regardless of the stance one takes. Wouldn't one be better prepared to hold their ground if one were arguing one's own thoughts?

Isn't it an exercise for the mind to debate one's own views as well?

[Jon L. Obscene]

Yes that is true, but in for example: football, you train against your team mates.
In this instance you are training against your own mind as well as others.
Therefore giving you a more intense training programme and hightening your senses to sidewinder attacks as it were, false statements and attempts to lead you off your point. In essesnce hardening your shield allowing a more confident flow of debating when it comes to the real thing.

And you said "One's" too many times, you sound like the Queen ffs :frusty: :P

Jonno :cool:

[DanB]

Ah a mass debate

[DanB]

Handy that cos I do think its a good idea.

When I was at school we used to have to do it in our English class, I used to quite enjoy it

[NikkiD]

I apologize for the repeated use of the word "one" but to say "he" all the time is to assume that all involved will always be male. Last time I checked, I was in possession of body parts which would make that statement untrue. However, for the sake of the argument, I shall use "he" for easier reading.

How can you compare football to debating?

When someone trains for a sport, they learn as much as possible. The more skills one learns, the better he will be at the game. There is no bias involved.

In debating, yes, it is important to learn all you can about a subject. It is possible for a person to expand their understanding of a topic without arguing against his own views on that topic.

[Jon L. Obscene]

When someone trains for a sport, they learn as much as possible. The more skills one learns, the better he will be at the game.


Thats it right there, you proved my point for me , Thank you.


There is no bias involved.

Not true, how can you say a sportsman is not biased? Of course he/she :P is, biased to their own team.


In debating, yes, it is important to learn all you can about a subject. It is possible for a person to expand their understanding of a topic without arguing against his own views on that topic.

Again, very true.
My point is that arguing against yourself as well as others will harden your mind.
Let me give you an analogy

If you play an acoustic guitar for 3 hours, then pick up an electric, you will find the electric seems easier than normal to play. this is due to the wieght and tension of string difference between the 2.

This thread is the acoustic guitar, arguing not only against others, but against yourself.
When the real debate happens it will be the electric guitar, it will seem easier and lighter to take part in because you will have "Over hardened" your mind.

Side effects of this could be big headedness.

Jonno :cool:

[DanB]

:huh:

[NikkiD]

Thats it right there, you proved my point for me , Thank you.

No, I didn't. I simply stated that the more skills a person aquires, the better they will be at a sport. That doesn't prove or disprove either points. There is no bias involved to learning skills. No opinion, no argument, just training your body to perform something.


Not true, how can you say a sportsman is not biased? Of course he/she :P is, biased to their own team.

And when they are traded to a different team? Skills they have are transferrable, no matter what team they play for. There is no bias in being able to score a goal, no matter who you score it for.


Again, very true.
My point is that arguing against yourself as well as others will harden your mind.
Let me give you an analogy

If you play an acoustic guitar for 3 hours, then pick up an electric, you will find the electric seems easier than normal to play. this is due to the wieght and tension of string difference between the 2.

This thread is the acoustic guitar, arguing not only against others, but against yourself.
When the real debate happens it will be the electric guitar, it will seem easier and lighter to take part in because you will have "Over hardened" your mind.

Side effects of this could be big headedness.

Again, you can quite easily learn the opposing viewpoint without arguing for it.

To use your analogy, you're more likely to give up the guitar lessons altogether if you're not playing music you like.

If you argue for something you believe in, you are more likely to stick with the debate. If you argue something you don't believe in, you're likely to walk away. Walking away doesn't hone the skill of debate.

[Arm]

I wish we could all have a debate without the use of ad hominem. :dry:

[Jon L. Obscene]

No, I didn't. I simply stated that the more skills a person aquires, the better they will be at a sport. That doesn't prove or disprove either points. There is no bias involved to learning skills. No opinion, no argument, just training your body to perform something.

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


And when they are traded to a different team? Skills they have are transferrable, no matter what team they play for. There is no bias in being able to score a goal, no matter who you score it for.

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.


Again, you can quite easily learn the opposing viewpoint without arguing for it.

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.


To use your analogy, you're more likely to give up the guitar lessons altogether if you're not playing music you like.

lol, now you know you don't wanna be getting me started on that :lol:
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.


If you argue for something you believe in, you are more likely to stick with the debate. If you argue something you don't believe in, you're likely to walk away. Walking away doesn't hone the skill of debate.

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.

Jonno :cool:

[Jon L. Obscene]

You Sir will argue that the idea is a bad one.

Thats 3 on 1 :helpsmili

Jonno :cool:

[Jon L. Obscene]

:( I apologise

Please continue :)

Jonno :cool:

[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 :lol:
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 :01: That an Argument/point CAN be held even if you don't believe it.
But it is bollocks :lol:


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 :cool:

[Jon L. Obscene]

DP oops, sorry :lol:

Jonno :cool:

[NikkiD]

You give up too easily. Have you no conviction? :lol:

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.

:lol:

[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 :cool:

[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 :dry: )

[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.

:lol:


Nor did you :P


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 :cool:

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

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