Reverse debate #1 - Page 4

talloulou · 12-29-06, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vauge

It was very fun for the both of us, as there was much more that you all didn't see resulting in shorter posts.

We were both hammering it out in the chatroom as well.

Well that's not fair!

talloulou · 12-29-06, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

I don't consider "fire" and "passion" necessary components of an effective debate; all too often, these qualities edge over into shrillness and hysteria, and who needs that?
Perhaps, because it was the first debate, they rushed through it.
I told Jerry we should take all the time we want on debate #2; several days, if necessary.

I will agree that you should avoid "shrill" and "hysterical". I'm not suggesting the debate needs to get highly emotional but at the very least I have to be convinced that the person arguing either side really earnestly is convinced that what they are trying to convince me is what they believe right down to their core. That's what makes "reverse debates" so much harder. But that's what I mean about passion.

The power to pursuade and convince is the ultimate goal in my mind. You're not just attempting to show why someone else is wrong but ultimately why you're right, right?

tecoyah · 12-29-06, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by talloulou

I will agree that you should avoid "shrill" and "hysterical". I'm not suggesting the debate needs to get highly emotional but at the very least I have to be convinced that the person arguing either side really earnestly is convinced that what they are trying to convince me is what they believe right down to their core. That's what makes "reverse debates" so much harder. But that's what I mean about passion.

The power to pursuade and convince is the ultimate goal in my mind. You're not just attempting to show why someone else is wrong but ultimately why you're right, right?

Truthfully....we are actually good friends, and this debate was more meant to get the ball rolling than to be a serious carnage fest. Without a doubt,we could have both made it far more serious and kept this debate going for much longer. This topic however, cannot be forced to conclusion which is why it was chosen.

I think we just wanted to to give people an Idea of what can be done.

Jerry · 12-29-06, 08:38 PM

One can prove God's existance right now:

Die.

vauge · 12-30-06, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry

One can prove God's existance right now:

Die.

That only proves mortality.

Adrian · 12-30-06, 01:59 AM

On one hand, I think that Tecoyah surrendered a tad quickly with his "God-is-real-to-me" maneuver. But on the other hand, I really don't know what sort of mental acrobatics could come up with any sort of logical argument for the existence of God either.

Reverse debates are actually quite common in universities. You are assigned a position and expected to defend it despite whatever feelings you have on the matter. It's a good mental exercise.