what is the point of debates? - Page 5

Originally posted by: mythili_Kiran

Lighthouse ji!! Don't make any unncessary efforts to glorify the beauty of Debate Mansion and the debates that take place here.We really like this place and the people who come here,so whatever happens here we come here because we learn something new eveyday.So don't worry if any gentleman does'nt understand the beauty of DM😊 .Its not necesary for everyperson to understand the beauty of "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",they might be interested in someother concept like "Budget and Political influences" which is pretty tough and practical.BTW did'nt we learn tolerance ??????😆

Cheers,

Mythili

excuse me, but is the topic about DM, or is it "the point of debate"?😕 will be sure to add to the discussion about DM if one is asked 😉😆

Originally posted by: chatbuster

haha, but there's a lot wrong with what's been sent my way. just my opinion. hope stating my opinion and defending it vigorously will not be considered condescending now?😛

1. tamasha was mentioned in the context of street-fights; the context shld have been clear given that movie-watching and novel-reading were also mentioned. wondered why you left those out. tamasha scores more brownie points? good. i knew that it would.😉

When you lead the argument with examples to drive your point home by progressively debasing the examples until you start using the word "TAMASHA" , that word becomes your focal point.

2. the topic does not ask for a referendum on DM. it is asking about "the point of debate", not DM. and it does not ask for grand reasons for why you or i or anyone else comes to DM. i am sure people come to DM and to other forums in general to also chat, make friends etc. Not sure those are very pertinent, as in primary, for the "point of debate". is it? yes/ no?😊

Exactly... The topic does not ask specifically to which group it is targeting the question hence the entire DM, debaters and silent readers are included.

3. for one side to suggest that another's point is secondary, irrelevant or perhaps even ridiculous in their opinion is standard practice. does not say "you are ridiculous". incidentally i do not even go as far, though one might want to hear some of the presidential debates to see how far people go actually go.

When you respond or address your opponent with "Ha Ha" it becomes downright disrespectful IMO. Presidential debates too have code of conduct and a moderator and is not free for all. Debating rule # 1. You are not selling anything or winning any contest (except DC) or prizes so it is not necessary to have only one solution or opinion. Quoting your views posted SRGMP (giving credit where it is due) " real world does not lend itself to precise answers, to simple night and day choices and calculations."👏

4. i think i have justified my opinion in the way i can. but what followed from you was a defensive personalized throw-back at me. why do i believe that? because the reference is strongly to me. and that's my opinion. contrast that with the rebuttal or debating put-down i made which i believe is valid in logic-driven debate.

You highlited the reason I had given for why I like debates and enjoy DM and you responded with what else but "ha ha" so am i wrong in assuming that it was directed towards me...and ended with "explanations that i came up addresses that best IMO" therefore directly saying to me that in IYO I am wrong to form my opinion about myself.😕

5. i cant be bothered taking dictation and directions from what others either here or elsewhere have said or quoted in their wisdom, if i dont believe it is pertinent to the context. i like to think for myself. but then that's me again. please dont take it as criticism now.

none taken.😊

6. and finally, getting to the point of this thread, why we debate, you said it first line. addiction. great. combine that with the learning track that has been suggested. well, given how learning's such a good thing, maybe then it's the kind of addiction we should all have 😉

Are you agreeing with me or being satirical. Winky wink...

7. this thread was in debate mansion, right? sorry if i took it as someting one could debate on. did not know it was supposed to be some kinda encyclopedic listing of all the reasons anyone on earth might find😆

Again state your views but don't go for the kill....you(not you personally) are not selling anything and clocking FF miles for driving the same point over and over.

sorry i cant provide nice quotes. 😆

Not refering to you personaly Rahul, but in general if we are going to liken Debating to any Commercial activity , it should be compared to Marketing and Newsroom 101. Keep the language simple so it reaches the lowest common denominator. No hi tech jargon or mumbo jumbo fancy words IMO. Disclaimer: above is just my observation and not a rule.😊

😃

Originally posted by: chatbuster

excuse me, but is the topic about DM, or is it "the point of debate"?😕 will be sure to add to the discussion about DM if one is asked 😉😆

I posted this early in the morning somewhere around 5: 30 Am..I watched Prannoy Roy's Eco Survey Analysis on NDTV so I used that budget reference and Einstein was on the desktop so I used the reference of theory of relateivity.So don't bother about these much CB ji!!

nvmd😉(never mind delete is the abbreviation used by sareg Bhayya)

cheers,

Myth

Originally posted by: lighthouse

just wanted to respond here tho' i cld have easily ignored what you posted- just think we need to be clear going forward😊

incidentally, so we are clear that the topic was not about DM but about the "point of debate"?😊

Originally posted by: chatbuster

incidentally, so we are clear that the topic was not about DM but about the "point of debate"?😊 .

Rahul, you are asking me to speak for the original poster which I wouldn't do but here is the original post again

Originally posted by: mkzara

this is a cute little topic. i see a lot of people on DM who say lets not talk about this topic anymore because u cant change someone's views and there's no point in debating if u dont have a chance. i dont feel that way. i think the point of debating is to let the other side know how u feel, u tell them what u stand for and listen to what they stand for. the point of a debate is ideally to convince someone but really to just open up their mind to things so everyone can see everyone else's opinion. i just believe debating is done to let other see and understand ur point of view even if they dont agree with it.

My understanding is that she is including the debaters as well silence readers by using the word "everyone"..

Everyone knows when we debate or express our opinions on DM , it is never with one person only. Silent readers might see something they liked or didn't like and hence become active participants like you and I became. Silent readers are very important part of debate forum or any forum for that matter and I don't think one can ever ignore them when talking or expressing their views.

Btw I leanrned the word "condescending" in my early teen school years.😃

I wanted to address the most relevant part of your question and hence have not engaged in responding to entire rebuttal as we both have jobs to go to.😆

Originally posted by: lighthouse

Rahul, you are asking me to speak for the original poster which I wouldn't do but here is the original post again

My understanding is that she is including the debaters as well silence readers by using the word "everyone"..

Everyone knows when we debate or express our opinions on DM , it is never with one person only. Silent readers might see something they liked or didn't like and hence become active participants like you and I became. Silent readers are very important part of debate forum or any forum for that matter and I don't think one can ever ignore them when talking or expressing their views.

Btw I leanrned the word "condescending" in my early teen school years.😃

I wanted to address the most relevant part of your question and hence have not engaged in responding to entire rebuttal as we both have jobs to go to.😆

well lightie (sorry but that's in fun now, hope it's ok to have some fun 😊), but what the poster is saying is still different from some of the perspective you adopted. their's was more a debator's perspective, yours more a silent person's. since it does not take much energy expenditure to be a silent participant in any field, street fights included, i am not sure listing their myriad reasons for reading/ watching will be particularly relevant or helpful IMO. am again not saying they dont happen to have their reasons, just that i dont think throwing a book of reasons always reflects prioritized value-add.

also, it is possible for debators to engage WITHOUT the presence of an audience. dont we get into debates one-to-one with others? dont we play chess with just another player even if no one is watching? so that's the perspective i find more important- why do people do so in the first place, burning up all that energy and time, people without whom the audience becomes irrelevant. remember- the audience has very little vested anyway, but what interests me is why the active types make that investment of time and energy.

why do we do so? it can be for some of the reasons the original poster came up with. but i also think it has to do with addiction (which oddly enuff you yourself suggested in another context), fun, and just a desire to bring the other guy to your side. dont know that most people actually debate because they want to learn, though there are some like that and though that might be an unintended outcome.

hope this makes more sense?😊

Originally posted by: chatbuster

well lightie (sorry but that's in fun now, hope it's ok to have some fun 😊), but what the poster is saying is still different from some of the perspective you adopted. their's was more a debator's perspective, yours more a silent person's. since it does not take much energy expenditure to be a silent participant in any field, street fights included, i am not sure listing their myriad reasons for reading/ watching will be particularly relevant or helpful IMO. am again not saying they dont happen to have their reasons, just that i dont think throwing a book of reasons always reflects prioritized value-add.

also, it is possible for debators to engage WITHOUT the presence of an audience. dont we get into debates one-to-one with others? dont we play chess with just another player even if no one is watching? so that's the perspective i find more important- why do people do so in the first place, burning up all that energy and time, people without whom the audience becomes irrelevant. remember- the audience has very little vested anyway, but what interests me is why the active types make that investment of time and energy.

why do we do so? it can be for some of the reasons the original poster came up with. but i also think it has to do with addiction (which oddly enuff you yourself suggested in another context), fun, and just a desire to bring the other guy to your side. dont know that most people actually debate because they want to learn, though there are some like that and though that might be an unintended outcome.

hope this makes more sense?😊

I havent been very active in DM recently but once I was quoted, I felt it was a good enough reason to come back into it for a little while.😊

IMO its an unfair comment to make that people dont debate to learn, I debate to learn, and I constantly debate online, in person, in school, in family gatherings, always. I read debates that I am not a part of to learn, because while i might mot have an opinion on many things I do like to see what all the brouhaha is about. There is so much that we dont know and there are so many people in this world who know nothing but will get up and argue a point, so rather than becoming one of those people I debate to learn so I could be a better, more rational, more logical person who is not prejudiced or biased due to ignorance. So yes people do debate to learn.

Learning is possible even in one-on-one debates since your opponent might know things and argue logically using facts and reasons so you can actually learn. unless you are speaking to imbeciles in which case u shudnt be debating with them.😉 But I debate with people I believe are intelligent and can function logically so I keep my mind open to what they have to say in order to learn because they might be aware of something I am not. As much as it pains me to admit, I dont know everything.😭😆

Yes of course in debates you wish the other person to come to your side, but most logical individuals do realize that is not always possible, especiallly in issues regarding religion and such. So we share our POVs in hope to promote tolerance and educate others so they dont succumb to bigotry which is fueled by ignorance and stereotypes. People debate to let others undersrtand even if they will never agree.

Originally posted by: chatbuster

haha, am glad you found something worthwhile there to quote. silent reading does pay off i suppose?😉😉😉

incidentally, so haha and laughter is out as a valid form of expression? 😕 i suppose debates are just dead-pan expressions?😛😆 and you decide what is appropriate and what's not?😉

it just bothered me that you said your haha's were perfectly fine, yes laughing is fine in debates but not laughing at what others have to say. you can think that the other person is wrong but that doesnt give u the right to ridicule the person or their views. you shud try to convince the other person of your thinking and if u can tthen u cant, that doesnt mean u get to make fun of them. i mean only those that dont have an argument, try to laugh off another's argument. And yes there is a debating etiquette and this is the socially accepted one and hasnt been created by lighthouse.😉 Unfortunately most people who argue or love to argue dont follow it. People dont realize there is a difference in arguing and debating. Debating is done by knowledgeable individuals who try to convey their point rationally and logically and keep an open mind and listen to what the other person has to say and not ridicule but prove wrong their analysis, point by point. Arguing is what most people do, ridicule another's argument or call them names or call them a heretic or irreligious or whatever will make this individual's come off right without having valid points to back up their argument. So yes haha is a good enough for arguing but by contemporary debating standards its not.😊

Originally posted by: mkzara

I havent been very active in DM recently but once I was quoted, I felt it was a good enough reason to come back into it for a little while.😊

IMO its an unfair comment to make that people dont debate to learn, I debate to learn, and I constantly debate online, in person, in school, in family gatherings, always. I read debates that I am not a part of to learn, because while i might mot have an opinion on many things I do like to see what all the brouhaha is about. There is so much that we dont know and there are so many people in this world who know nothing but will get up and argue a point, so rather than becoming one of those people I debate to learn so I could be a better, more rational, more logical person who is not prejudiced or biased due to ignorance. So yes people do debate to learn.

Learning is possible even in one-on-one debates since your opponent might know things and argue logically using facts and reasons so you can actually learn. unless you are speaking to imbeciles in which case u shudnt be debating with them.😉 But I debate with people I believe are intelligent and can function logically so I keep my mind open to what they have to say in order to learn because they might be aware of something I am not. As much as it pains me to admit, I dont know everything.😭😆

Yes of course in debates you wish the other person to come to your side, but most logical individuals do realize that is not always possible, especiallly in issues regarding religion and such. So we share our POVs in hope to promote tolerance and educate others so they dont succumb to bigotry which is fueled by ignorance and stereotypes. People debate to let others undersrtand even if they will never agree.

you are misquoting me. i never stated that learning is not a part of it, just that it's not the dominant force in why most people who engage in debates do so IMO. i am not stupid to realize that everyone has their own reasons, ranging from chatting to simply trying to make friends (as was stated before by someone) to whatever drives their fancy, and that there are always exceptions to everything.

but rather than get an entire book of reasons handed down, i was hoping to prioritize in some manner. that i think is considered interpretive "value-add' in various circles. the other kind of listing IMO is raw data/ noise. sorry if this may sound harsh, and hopefully this will not be considered directed at anyone, but that's what we learn when we are in kindergarten- throwing the book back at the teach without able to discriminate amongst various choices. if someone needs further substantation on this latter point, i'll try to find something for them😊

and a lot of my argument in the first place was relating to "why debate", not "why read". hope that is clear as well?😉

ps. of course, what i have are my priorities or my understanding of most people's priorities. one can feel free to disagree.😊

Originally posted by: chatbuster

well lightie (sorry but that's in fun now, hope it's ok to have some fun 😊), but what the poster is saying is still different from some of the perspective you adopted. their's was more a debator's perspective, yours more a silent person's. since it does not take much energy expenditure to be a silent participant in any field, street fights included, i am not sure listing their myriad reasons for reading/ watching will be particularly relevant or helpful IMO. am again not saying they dont happen to have their reasons, just that i dont think throwing a book of reasons always reflects prioritized value-add.

also, it is possible for debators to engage WITHOUT the presence of an audience. dont we get into debates one-to-one with others? dont we play chess with just another player even if no one is watching? so that's the perspective i find more important- why do people do so in the first place, burning up all that energy and time, people without whom the audience becomes irrelevant. remember- the audience has very little vested anyway, but what interests me is why the active types make that investment of time and energy.

why do we do so? it can be for some of the reasons the original poster came up with. but i also think it has to do with addiction (which oddly enuff you yourself suggested in another context), fun, and just a desire to bring the other guy to your side. dont know that most people actually debate because they want to learn, though there are some like that and though that might be an unintended outcome.

hope this makes more sense?😊

Are Rahul..😛 From Haha to Lightie. 👍🏼 . Much better.😳 I think you learned something. 😆

Seriously , there isn't any one specific primary reason for different ppl to invest time and energy in participating in debates or expressing their views. I consider even silent readers to be participants because they are spending time and doing self introspection by agreeing or not in their own minds which is more like what one does when watching a game of chess being played. Watching a street fight or tamasha does not involve any soul searching or re-examining ones beliefs.

The problem I had was the comparision you made of watching debates to watching street fighting and that is plain wrong IMO.

I feel that some of the valid reasons why anyone would spend time debating are Instant gratification (whatever that may be), Rage to master which is intense focus on specific interests or goals resulting in the state of mental immersion called "flow," which in turn elicits feelings of accomplishment and well-being or just plain old curiosity to explore and learn more about something.

Rahul I really had fun debating you which made me explore and learn more about the subject and myself.😃 😳