The Nature of Debate

[liamconnor]

I was not sure where to post this, but this was the only subforum that I have frequented here.

I was telling a lawyer friend of mine about my debates here, and about some of the frustrations I have. He was familiar with debate forums of other topics. He said part of my frustration is that Debate forums typically do not care about truth. They care about winning.

He used his own profession to make a point. The one example that struck me he had borrowed from a movie. (spoiler alert).

In a movie where Denzel Washington flies a plane, he saves the passengers in a skillful crash-landing. He was high as a kite, which showed up in the post tests. His lawyer knew this. He investigated and saw that the equipment used to test D.W. was out of date. D. at this time had already confessed to his attorney that he was on cocaine, and his attorney knew it. It didn't matter; the equipment was out of date. Therefore, inadmissible.

His attorney (my friend went on) was not interested in the truth. He was interested in defending a client, guilty or not. "That" my friend said, "was good attorney work". He went on to explain why it was "good" attorney work, and I see some point to it. But he compared this forum to that kind of work. "Forums like yours aint about finding truth. Theyre about invalidating the opposing party." He said a few other things but what stuck out to me was "no one cares whether something is true or false on a debate; they care about invalidating the opposing party by any means possible."


Question. Is that a fair description of forums in general, or this one in particular?

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

I think it’s only a fair description of some on this forum (and similar forums). Personally, although I understand that many feel we are feel to ‘debate’ I have always preferred to think of it as a discussion. And when you are having a discussion when the other participant can’t acknowledge an obvious error in what they are saying (not ‘big picture’ philosophical questions that have many viable options), then they are not participating in the discussion in good faith. Of course, we have to be very careful in identifying what we think is an obvious mistake in what the other person is saying is. I try to limit it to errors of fact in which there is virtually no debate be any reasonably minded observer regardless of identification. In any case, if the other party won’t acknowledge they are mistaken on such a point or if they are become exceptionally defensive or are likewise evasive then I am leery of engaging with them in a discussion. I just don’t feel it would be productive.

However, if the question is indeed an open one (i.e. reasonable people can have differing views) then I have no problem with discussing the issue. Again, I use ‘discuss’ with intent because I am interested in what others think about a given question. I know what I think, I am genuinely curious as to how people think differently than I do.

Take care,
TFV

[marco]

And when you are having a discussion when the other participant can’t acknowledge an obvious error in what they are saying (not ‘big picture’ philosophical questions that have many viable options), then they are not participating in the discussion in good faith.

The opponent is as good as his/her flexibility in such matters. It is a point of good debating, I think, to make a courteous concession of error. Sometimes, alas, what is obvious to one might be deeply esoteric to another.

In any case, if the other party won’t acknowledge they are mistaken on such a point or if they become exceptionally defensive or are likewise evasive then I am leery of engaging with them in a discussion. I just don’t feel it would be productive.

It isn't productive at all. We plough through the unproductive in the expectation that we will involve ourselves in something pleasing, entertaining and, who knows, instructive. Go well.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 21 by tfvespasianus]

Thank you for the reasoned post.

I think it’s only a fair description of some on this forum (and similar forums). Personally, although I understand that many feel we are feel to ‘debate’ I have always preferred to think of it as a discussion.

It should have been noticed by all that this Forum / Website is composed of sub-forums that are specifically intended as debate and other sub-forums that are intended for discussion.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/index.php

Those who prefer discussion are encouraged to use the appropriate sub-forums (such as this one) and to avoid the debate sub-forums. Unfortunately, many seem unable or unwilling to make the distinction and thereby expect discussion where there is debate.

Christianity and Apologetics is the most popular sub-forum and often people misuse it in attempting to discuss their beliefs and/or proselytize or rant.

And when you are having a discussion when the other participant can’t acknowledge an obvious error in what they are saying (not ‘big picture’ philosophical questions that have many viable options), then they are not participating in the discussion in good faith.

Yup, the “other guy� often has a speck in his eye.

Of course, we have to be very careful in identifying what we think is an obvious mistake in what the other person is saying is.

Agreed.

I try to limit it to errors of fact in which there is virtually no debate be any reasonably minded observer regardless of identification.

Same here. However, in these debates I have been challenged to show that the Earth rotates and revolves.

In any case, if the other party won’t acknowledge they are mistaken on such a point or if they are become exceptionally defensive or are likewise evasive then I am leery of engaging with them in a discussion. I just don’t feel it would be productive.

After many years debating Theists here I conclude:

1. Theists are always right about anything religious
2. Everyone who disagrees is wrong, even if they consider themselves Christian
3. Theist individuals always have superior knowledge and understanding of the Bible
4. “The indwelling Holy Spirit� (and God) provide Theists with special knowledge
5. There is a great conspiracy against religion

Or so many seem to think. Perhaps they are mistaken?

However, if the question is indeed an open one (i.e. reasonable people can have differing views) then I have no problem with discussing the issue. Again, I use ‘discuss’ with intent because I am interested in what others think about a given question. I know what I think, I am genuinely curious as to how people think differently than I do.

We can explore and learn how / what others think by discussion OR debate. Neither has a patent on the learning process (though anyone may have personal preferences for one or the other).