What's wrong with a good debate?

[prisonchaplain]

Well...I know what's wrong with politics. There is intentional misconstruction of ideas, and effort to "beat" the opponent, a presumption of mistrust and ill will, etc. But I miss the days when two people could engage in healthy debate, and conclude by shaking hands. Who knows...sometimes even the loser of a debate may say something that gives the winner pause for thought? Debate does not have to equal fight, and I find it sad that too often people get offended, and it ends up that way, and then people conclude that debate itself is useless.

[Maureen]

I agree. And debating keeps your mind fresh.

M.

[Intrigued]

Debate keeps the mind sharp and is often a way to see things in a different light.. or from a different angle, etc.

[marts1]

Might fair better if the word discussion was used rather then debate.

[WmLee]

PC ~ I love to listen to a well grounded discussion or debate! I recall years ago, as a child with my grandfather back east when he would take me to listen to local politicians debate issues. Though i didn't alway understand each issue they brought up, the things my gandfather would say later made me feel as if he learned more about things. Sadly, we don't find that any longer. Debating issues seem to swing into charactor attacks every time.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I find there's a lot of room for more quality debate on discussion forums in general. In online discussion forums it's perceived as being argumentative or showing unhealthy emotion if you provide counterpoint to people's arguments too many times. The "debate" degrades into assumptions about people's perceived character flaws etcetera, and then, someone has to close the thread or get involved in moderating. Also, repeated rebuttals are also perceived as personal attacks, or picking a fight.

I also notice that many discussions aren't debate at all, they are a series of independent monologues on the subject. Everyone weighs in on an issue so the discussion is simply a string of opinions against the original issue, rather than any reasoned discussion. This can be useful sometimes, when you want a variety of perspectives, but it's not engaging debate.

I've also noticed that when I've tried to moderate/create/invite formal debate in the various classes I've been involved in teaching, the students have a really hard time with steps 3 and 4 of the structured debate process below:

1. Ist person presents their position on the issue

2. 2nd person presents their position on the issue

3. 1st Person provides a rebuttal to the second person's position on the issue, referring specifically to the points in the second person's opening argument.

4. 2nd person provides a rebuttal to the first person's position on the issue, referring specifically to the points in the first person's opening argument.

I'd love to see a formal debate here at LDS. net on an issue such as "Law-making and enforcement should be centralized in order to create a happier nation" (In America, the debate about how much power the central government should have versus the states). Or on some other issue.

I think the key to stopping the perception that the participants in the debate are arguing is to limit the number of rebuttals. People have a hard time realizing people are simply debating, and are not getting heated about the issue when the rebuttals go on and on.

Also fun is debating AGAINST a position you believe in. I think this requires a significant amount of open-mindedness and really helps you see both sides of the issue.

Edited May 11, 2010 by mormonmusic

[Dravin]

I'd love to see a formal debate here at LDS. net on an issue such as "Law-making and enforcement should be centralized in order to create a happier nation" (In America, the debate about how much power the central government should have versus the states). Or on some other issue.

Start one. I think if everyone involved knows they are going to be dealing with point and counterpoint it'll help nip misconceptions in the bud. I think the biggest thing that makes people cry foul is when they just want to weigh in and then they find their posts being dissected, but if you tell them you are going to do it to begin with they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Might fair better if the word discussion was used rather then debate.

Discussion and debate aren't the same thing though. Debate is more structured and the standards for your position are higher. In a discussion you can weigh in with your point of view, with a debate you are expected to defend it.

[marts1]

Discussion and debate aren't the same thing though. Debate is more structured and the standards for your position are higher. In a discussion you can weigh in with your point of view, with a debate you are expected to defend it.

Of course they are different but not by much. Many negative discussions end up much the same as heated debates, just takes longer to get there.

[Dravin]

Of course they are different but not by much. Many negative discussions end up much the same as heated debates, just takes longer to get there.

You mean many debates and discussions both end up arguments? That I can agree with. :)

Edited May 11, 2010 by Dravin

[pam]

Might fair better if the word discussion was used rather then debate.

High School Discussion Team just doesn't have quite the same sound to it as High School Debate Team

[Dravin]

High School Discussion Team just doesn't have quite the same sound to it as High School Debate Team

Likewise the Missionary Debates might send the wrong message. :)

[Traveler]

As a former high school state champion – few “arguments” on the internet would qualify as debate. Here are some simple guide lines.

1. There are two sides – They are called the affirmative or advocate and the negative or accusative.

2. There is a “question” that proposes a change. Ether in thinking (doctrine for religion) or policy.

3. The affirmative or advocate supports the change and presents a “plan” that will bring about the change.

4. The negative or accusative argues against change or against the plan. They have the option of supporting the change in which case they can present logical arguments that the plan is incomplete or faulty.

5. The affirmative or advocate has the responsibility to define terms. If the negative or accusative does not like the definition of terms they must provide a new definition as well as proof that the previous definitions are flawed (which in most cases are very difficult). This is a most important part of the debate and could cause an otherwise very good topic to fail on a technicality.

6. In formal debate there is a “weight” of witness. For example if we are debating something about Christianity anything said by Jesus would trump anyone else. Those taught by Jesus (original Apostles) would be the next highest expert authorities. The more removed from Jesus the less expert the authority. In many informal religious debates there appears to me to be no formal expert structure when considering scripture. Often I will quote Jesus and an opponent will counter and quote Paul think they counter the point.

Some personal observations about debates: I do not think a debate is won unless a person can out debate their opponent regardless of which side they are debating. If you cannot argue the other side of the question or issue – you should not be involved in a debate. The reason is twofold. First – your mind is made up and the issue is over making discussion pointless. Two – You are uninformed. Seldom is any question completely one sided. You are not countering logic with logic nor are you capable of compassion. It is not a debate.

With religion – most people are not really divided between “good” and “evil” but do not have enough common ground with definitions of terms. For example there are often heated debates concerning the importance between faith and works but because faith and works are ill defined the arguments are more about misunderstanding than clear cut rejection and acceptance of logic.

I do not like to debate when my opponent starts telling me what I believe or what I am arguing. This is a signal to me that their points are so week and indefensible that they must falsely state my case in order to pretend they have anything at all to argue. Sometimes when I am not sure what a person is saying I may ask – are you arguing that ….. and then state what I think they may be arguing. It is sad but often they say no and will not clarify their point.

Bottom line – I love debating. For many reasons. One is a sanity check of my arguments, another is that often I learn something I have not considered and I believe I am always looking for truth.

The Traveler

[not_ashamed]

I was on my high school debate team... I loved it. I liked being able to present the facts about things I felt strongly about. What really amazed me though is when I had to argue something I didn't agree with. I often found myself understanding the other side much more clearly.

[suberbenite]

I think we should start by debating the use of the term discussion.

[Traveler]

I was on my high school debate team... I loved it. I liked being able to present the facts about things I felt strongly about. What really amazed me though is when I had to argue something I didn't agree with. I often found myself understanding the other side much more clearly.

The better you can argue a point the better you can refute it - even when you agree.

The Traveler

[Guest]

The reason why it doesn't work on online forums like these is because a lot of the members are not trained to debate. It is not something you "just know how to do". Like Traveler mentioned above, there are specific ground rules and expectations in a real debate that ends up with two parties shaking hands.

A perfect analogy is a boxing match versus a street brawl... rarely will you see a street brawl ending up in shaking hands whereas a boxing match usually end up with both fighters shaking hands - well, unless you're Tyson and you just took a chunk out of someone's ear...

[Traveler]

The reason why it doesn't work on online forums like these is because a lot of the members are not trained to debate. It is not something you "just know how to do". Like Traveler mentioned above, there are specific ground rules and expectations in a real debate that ends up with two parties shaking hands.

A perfect analogy is a boxing match versus a street brawl... rarely will you see a street brawl ending up in shaking hands whereas a boxing match usually end up with both fighters shaking hands - well, unless you're Tyson and you just took a chunk out of someone's ear...

Something else interesting - many debates (including legal debates in courts) are resolved over technical errors rather than actual logic concerning an issue. Few on the internet appreciate the importance of format and method (rhetorical method and logic) in a discussion. It would appear that even the “final judgment” before G-d has as much method in the format as substance. For literally thousands of years it has come to be recognized that without format and method there is little opportunity for “justice”. Thus a sense of justice by an individual is displayed in their method of debate even beyond the points they argue.

The Traveler

[rameumptom]

I miss the debates that Bill Buckley had on television every so often: Point/Counterpoint issues. They showed two sides of an issue, being debated by various individuals on both sides. Then the audience voted on whom they thought carried the day. And both sides shook hands afterwards.

One of the wonderful things about school debate teams is sometimes you had to debate an issue from the point you may or may not agree with.