Post by galaxygoddess on Feb 5, 2007 10:10:11 GMT -5
The purpose of a good debate is for two people with opposing views to present their argument in an attempt to sway someone's opinion toward their own. To inform and educate a person or persons in how we formed our opinions. That is my view on it.
A debate is not to be taken as a place to bicker or name call. It is not a place for you to bash your opinion over the heads of your opponents or even your supporters. You loose ground when you resort to these petty methods.
The idea is to arm yourself with the information you used to form your opinion in the first place and to present it in a logical manor so that the person opposing your view can see were you come from and to possibly better educate them if their opinion is made on false assumptions.
For instance, for years I was violently opposed to hunting. No one could sway me. To me it was inherently evil and cruel, and any participating in the sport deserved to be shot. I saw no purpose whatsoever. However, I spent near a week long debate and correspondence with a game warden and my opinion has actually changed greatly. He presented his argument in a calm and detailed manor and pointed out to me it's purpose and the statistics and other relevant information. Information I would not have listen to if he had not presented his argument in such a concise and polite detailed manor. Still believe hunting for the purpose of the biggest trophy is wrong, but for the real reasons, for food and culling an otherwise out of control population, it is a good thing. I finally understand that just simply adding more real predators will not fix the problem. However, I will not hunt myself, I'm just not as horrified by the concept any more.
That is the point of a GOOD debate. When you introduce name calling, threats, or even flatly refuse to listen or read the other person's side, you do not have a good debate. When you stick by misinformation, when you are so stuck and close minded that you refuse to listen for two seconds to why the other person feels the way you do, then you will never be able to participate in a GOOD debate.
It is a good thing to express your views and to back then up with concrete evidence and proof, if you at least listen to the other person's side. However, it is near impossible to listen to another person's side if that person has resorted to name calling, petty bickering, or is just a closed minded twit, who refuses to back up their beliefs with hard concrete evidence.
When you go into a debate you must also arm yourself with information the other side presents to you in their argument. If someone is opposed to you, it is advisable to arm yourself with at least a little bit of the information they may use against your information. However, if that is difficult to obtain, you must be willing to view the information they provide to you.
If by the end of the debate, you are so backed into a corner and you're opinion has been undoubtedly proved to be false, or misinterpreted of the real facts, have the common decency to concede defeat and it would be appropriate to change or alter you're previous assumptions. This is not the time to hold on to your end like a pit bull with a kitten. You're end has been proved invalid, accept it and move on. Become a better person for it.
If you are the winner of a debate, it will invalidate your opinion if you gloat about it. Accept victory gracefully and be prepared the next time a similar debate arises because you will have an idea of how they were so misinformed.
So, let's debate rationally, OK? Thank you
A debate is not to be taken as a place to bicker or name call. It is not a place for you to bash your opinion over the heads of your opponents or even your supporters. You loose ground when you resort to these petty methods.
The idea is to arm yourself with the information you used to form your opinion in the first place and to present it in a logical manor so that the person opposing your view can see were you come from and to possibly better educate them if their opinion is made on false assumptions.
For instance, for years I was violently opposed to hunting. No one could sway me. To me it was inherently evil and cruel, and any participating in the sport deserved to be shot. I saw no purpose whatsoever. However, I spent near a week long debate and correspondence with a game warden and my opinion has actually changed greatly. He presented his argument in a calm and detailed manor and pointed out to me it's purpose and the statistics and other relevant information. Information I would not have listen to if he had not presented his argument in such a concise and polite detailed manor. Still believe hunting for the purpose of the biggest trophy is wrong, but for the real reasons, for food and culling an otherwise out of control population, it is a good thing. I finally understand that just simply adding more real predators will not fix the problem. However, I will not hunt myself, I'm just not as horrified by the concept any more.
That is the point of a GOOD debate. When you introduce name calling, threats, or even flatly refuse to listen or read the other person's side, you do not have a good debate. When you stick by misinformation, when you are so stuck and close minded that you refuse to listen for two seconds to why the other person feels the way you do, then you will never be able to participate in a GOOD debate.
It is a good thing to express your views and to back then up with concrete evidence and proof, if you at least listen to the other person's side. However, it is near impossible to listen to another person's side if that person has resorted to name calling, petty bickering, or is just a closed minded twit, who refuses to back up their beliefs with hard concrete evidence.
When you go into a debate you must also arm yourself with information the other side presents to you in their argument. If someone is opposed to you, it is advisable to arm yourself with at least a little bit of the information they may use against your information. However, if that is difficult to obtain, you must be willing to view the information they provide to you.
If by the end of the debate, you are so backed into a corner and you're opinion has been undoubtedly proved to be false, or misinterpreted of the real facts, have the common decency to concede defeat and it would be appropriate to change or alter you're previous assumptions. This is not the time to hold on to your end like a pit bull with a kitten. You're end has been proved invalid, accept it and move on. Become a better person for it.
If you are the winner of a debate, it will invalidate your opinion if you gloat about it. Accept victory gracefully and be prepared the next time a similar debate arises because you will have an idea of how they were so misinformed.
So, let's debate rationally, OK? Thank you