Top | Newest First | Oldest First
K1llYourDumplings · 31-35, F
It depends on the sort of debate, I guess? If it's medicine or science we're talking about then it is not a matter of opinion but a matter of facts. So, if you tell me something that I have never heard of before, of course I'm going to ask for sources. And if the sources are shit then...of course I'm gonna call them that?
If it's something else we're talking about, art, politics, anything that could depend on personal opinions then yeah, asking for sources to prove an opinion is stupid.
If it's something else we're talking about, art, politics, anything that could depend on personal opinions then yeah, asking for sources to prove an opinion is stupid.
View 17 more replies »
CopperCicada · M
There is a more fundamental step that is even more important.
A debate is pointless if you are unwilling to change your position when provided evidence that your views are wrong or have unacceptable consequences.
Almost nobody enters into a debate anymore with the attitude that they are testing their views, that they will change their position if proven it is erroneous.
A debate is pointless if you are unwilling to change your position when provided evidence that your views are wrong or have unacceptable consequences.
Almost nobody enters into a debate anymore with the attitude that they are testing their views, that they will change their position if proven it is erroneous.
CopperCicada · M
@Really There is a scholastic tradition of debate where the purpose is precisely to seek the truth.
That is at the bottom of the dialogues of Socrates.
That is also at the bottom of scholastic debate in the Buddhist tradition. There one might defend and challenge both sides of an issue to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of each position.
It is also the same in science.
That is at the bottom of the dialogues of Socrates.
That is also at the bottom of scholastic debate in the Buddhist tradition. There one might defend and challenge both sides of an issue to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of each position.
It is also the same in science.
Really · 80-89, M
@CopperCicada That's not what I mean by debate. In any scholastic debate I've ever seen, each participant has to defend a fixed proposition, often not of his/her making, and regardless whether it can even be clearly defined. Neither proponent is expected to imply any agreement with the opponent's proposition.
That is what I mean by debate that is pointless except as sport. It can be great fun but it has little to do with exploring possibilities in search of truth.
That is what I mean by debate that is pointless except as sport. It can be great fun but it has little to do with exploring possibilities in search of truth.
CopperCicada · M
@Really I see. Yes. We had that in high school and college. I had no interest in it. I had no interest in compelling anyone to believe anything.
DeluxedEdition · 26-30, F
DeluxedEdition · 26-30, F
@MrBrownstone some people on this site don’t argue to make a point some people argue because they’re miserable lol
MrBrownstone · 46-50, M
@DeluxedEdition Or because they know you are right but just want to frustrate you.
DeluxedEdition · 26-30, F
@MrBrownstone Honestly that’s probably exactly what it is
Debate as a sport needs referees/judges, or at least respect for players calling their own fouls, imo.
If you're talking about SW, think about it like taking up a one on one game on a basketball court.
You might have fun, might help your skills, but only if you've got a compatible opponent/partner. If not, you'd likely be happier shooting free throws.
If you're talking about SW, think about it like taking up a one on one game on a basketball court.
You might have fun, might help your skills, but only if you've got a compatible opponent/partner. If not, you'd likely be happier shooting free throws.
MrBrownstone · 46-50, M
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
WhateverWorks · 36-40
It’s only worth citing information if the other person is actually interested in expanding their understanding of the topic. Most people are not though and if they don’t agree with it then it’s fake news/A conspiracy. As you’ve observed below, when you try to explain what a credible citation should entail they claim you’re being bias. 🤷🏻♀️ It’s been my experience though that if someone is genuinely interested in discussing some thing with you you won’t need to drop a bunch of citations because they will ask in a friendly way to see the article you read ABCD from out of sheer interest, not petulance.
