• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Honesty and the Art of Debate

Great original post. I also come here to understand better what I believe why I believe it in to open myself to other people's ideas. A pet peeve I have is when people immediately call the other side of an argument stupid. I've seen people do it to sitting presidents on both sides of the isle and it is a difficult thing to witness. It takes a certain maturity to realize that someone can have beliefs counter to your own and yet not be stupid.
 



iLOL
One we were speaking of in-general.

You have now trying to make it about "your debate".

As for my heart not being in it. That is an absurd assumption.


Debate - Point, counter point/refutation.
Once the argument has been made it is up to the other (‘if there heart is in it’ d'oh!), if they are serious about the debate, to counter/refute.
That would be their responsibility, not someone else's. But ignoring it and acting like it wasn't said is dishonesty in debate.

Your right, I shouldn't have assumed this was referring to a specific debate, it just seemed like you and HM were referring to a specific occurrence.

Let me expand on the rest though, in a more general sense. I'm running on the assumption there's no actual set of established rules specifically regarding this. You could argue responsibility for knowing all facts presented over the course of a debate. You could spend pages of ad homs and pointless back and forth telling your opponent that they need to look it up and why. Maybe it comes down to how you see debate. I feel like this is similar to court cases where the defendant gets off on a technicality. You'd be pushing for a technical win with little care for the truth of the matter. It also suggests the possibility that your facts/evidence might be weak and that maybe you're trying to lean on them without having them looked at too closely.

If I were having a debate I was invested in, and it got hung up on this, I would just look it up in either my own or the other persons post history, regardless of which side I was on. Its not that hard to click on someones name and spend 2 minutes looking through their post history.
 
That complainer does not get to later come back and demand information that was already posted, as it was their responsibility to read what what posted in the first place.
Complaining like that is dishonesty in debate and deflection.

Asking for verifiable evidence is part of debate. If you then claim you already provided it and the person asking for it cannot find it, it is perfectly proper to ask where it is. You then should supply the post number, or a link, or even the evidence again. But when somebody will spend post after post after post on page after page after page claiming they already provided it instead of simply doing what was requested, it is almost always because the person NEVER PROVIDED AVE PROVIDED IN THE FIRST PLACE. And their continued impotence to provide proof that they did shows they are up to simple intellectual fraud trying to pull a fast one.
 
Your right, ...
I am right in regards to everything I related. The other person is the one in the wrong.


Maybe it comes down to how you see debate.
This really isn't a "maybe" from any side of the isle.


You'd be pushing for a technical win with little care for the truth of the matter. It also suggests the possibility that your facts/evidence might be weak and that maybe you're trying to lean on them without having them looked at too closely.
Wanting the process adhered to is not a technicality even though idiots call it such.
If they can not properly present and respond, their case it is the weak case.
If they choose not inform their self of that which came before their position is weak.
If they choose to ignore and not refute the information provided they fail.
It is not incumbent on the other person to continually provided the information over and over again especially as it was already provided and ignored.
And it was provided a post or two prior to their asking for it. That is their problem.


Let me exemplify what I am speaking to.

Tom makes a post refuting/replying to what Tim said.

Tim: Quotes Tom's refutation, totally ignores it, and then makes the same argument which Tom had already refuted/replied.

Tom then quotes Tim's and tells them that their argument was already refuted by what they quoted even.

Tim absurdly asks; Where?

Tom then says; In what you quoted in your previous post.

Tim then goes on a rant about not being provided links or post numbers when it was just one post back.
This continues on, and on , and on.
The absurdity is all on Tim and not on Tom.


I would just look it up in either my own or the other persons post history, regardless of which side I was on.
I understand. Yet this is a tactic the other poster uses. It is deflection from their failed argument. I am not going to play their game. They can either pay attention and refute the first time (the honest way to debate) or they can continue to ignore and make false claims like they have. Either way it is all on them, as I am not obligated to continually provided that which was already provided and that which they themselves quoted but chose to ignore.





Asking for verifiable evidence is part of debate.
Yes it is.
As it was already provided and quoted by the person asking for it, they are playing a game.
As it was pointed out to them that they had "just" quoted it, asking for it again is nothing but a dishonest game of deflection, especially as all they had to do was go back and look at what they quoted.


If you then claim you already provided it and the person asking for it cannot find it, it is perfectly proper to ask where it is. You then should supply the post number, or a link, or even the evidence again. But when somebody will spend post after post after post on page after page after page claiming they already provided it instead of simply doing what was requested, it is almost always because the person NEVER PROVIDED AVE PROVIDED IN THE FIRST PLACE. And their continued impotence to provide proof that they did shows they are up to simple intellectual fraud trying to pull a fast one.
As it was pointed out that they had just quoted it, everything you related is irrelevant.
They were the one in the wrong for either not paying attention, or purposely ignoring it. That also makes them in the wrong for going in circles crying about it not being pointed out again, especially as the same argument had been used again with that poster (which they still failed to refute) as well as with another poster.

All that person did was go in circles dishonestly crying as a means of distraction about that which they were already aware and failed to refute.

That is a game that I wont be playing.
 
I like to debate about politics or whatever. Before I posted in forums I used to like reading good flame wars and good debates on forums. I like the conflict. In my opinion flame wars were better when we could actually have them - before everyone was labelled a cyberbully or cyberterrorist just for having a heated debate. Or a troll. Everyone is a troll these days apparently if they are not polite enough or go off topic a little. Before flame wars were much cooler in my opinion. In my opinion you can have some flaming and it still be a good debate. If there is no emotion then it is kind of boring to me. But yeah - I used to really like a good flame war debate - and to me it was better than boxing or whatever. But now days you dont really get that very much - because everything is micromoderated - and also everyone is worried about being labelled a cyberbully or cyberterrorist.

I used to like to debate on conspiracy site ATS especially. There were a lot of smart guys on that site - many were government shills - and may just from the public. The majority not so great at debate but the big guns there were awesome once. You could learn a lot from reading the debates - like about socialism or whatever ideology. And I liked to get those guys respect when I started to debate there. It used to be a really good site for debating politics.

I still like to debate now. It is maybe my favourite thing. I had a good debate today on WW2 and I learned some things from the debate that I didnt know. Debating is a good way to learn. I care about learning new stuff as much as putting in a decent debating performance. I dont mind a few insults - and I wish that forum culture was not so careful because I think that trading some insults is part of the fun of it. But yeah I guess I like the stimulation. I would rather have a good debate than watch a movie or play a video game or whatever. And I do like to try to promote my opinions - but am always happy if I lose a debate because that means that I have learned something.

edit- I used to like ATS - but I have also been a member of tPF and I think that is a good forum too - and I like to post stuff on ChinaDaily forum but you dont get much debate on that site really - but I do like it because some members post interesting stuff - plus it is non-western kind of.

Mostly I like to debate in forums because politics is my main interest - and I think that debating topics is fun.
 
Last edited:
I've been here a while, I mostly lurk, but I occasionally come out of the shadows to post something. I came here initially because I knew how ignorant I was concerning much of politics, and it bothered me. I felt like the very definition of Low Information Voter when it came time to cast my vote, and at some point it became obvious to me how, when I did attempt any kind of political debate, I was repeating talking points, had little to back them up with, and that I had basically been raised in a moderate - left household and never bothered to think beyond what I had accepted on faith. In light of this, it's no mystery on why I view debate the way that I do.

2 Years later, I still visit DP regularly and feel like I am much more aware of the general political landscape, the positions of various persons of note, etc. I'm also much more familiar with the arguments and perspectives of the opposition, those that oppose many things which I either accepted on faith or were presented to me as common sense at a young age, and to whom I had previously done nothing more than try to find new ways to ridicule while sounding witty. Perhaps I'm getting older, but I can't help but look back and feel that my old approach was ... juvenile. My views on some things have changed. My views on other things have simply been cemented in by this additional information. I am not ashamed of either, for I seek the truth whether my initial position is true or not.

On a whim, I googled "the art of debate", a term which, in my own head, I had taken to calling it.

All top results were "How to win a debate every time" "understanding and exploiting your opponents weaknesses in debate" "This approach will help you defeat any opponent in open debate" etc etc.

And it occurred to me, maybe I'm the minority here (both in the world and on DP lol).

I see debate as, at the risk of sounding extremely corny, a quest for truth.

Most, it seems, see debate as a duel. And in this duel dishonesty, deliberate misrepresentation, fallacy, offensive/emotionally charged yet factually empty statements, and other forms of intellectual dishonesty are but tools to be shamelessly used when the need arises. The duel must be won, by whatever means necessary. It is a contest, with a winner and a loser.

... (clipped for character limit)...

Did you come here to sharpen your dueling skills? In search of truth? To push a certain view? To channel your aggression into something that won't get you arrested?

Well, all of the above.

Let's look at this from another angle: science.

When you create a hypothesis in a scientific context, basically what you're doing is declaring a starting position. You have to start somewhere. Then, you go out and try to do everything you can to prove your own position wrong, both through research and by subjecting your hypothesis to other scientists who are also trying to prove you wrong.

It's very goal-driven. But... without that intentional, perhaps aggressive approach to testing your hypothesis, how do you know if it stands up to scrutiny?

So, why do I like to debate? All of the above. Yes, I'm intellectually aggressive and I like to win. But I won't lie in order to do so. Rather, I want my position to be so strong that it can't be logically defeated. THAT is how you find out whether it is true. Subject it to people trying to prove it wrong, and see if it stands up.

It's all good and well to want compromise and agreement, and in much of life that is preferable: healthy relationships, what responsibilities to take, etc. Those are situations where there often is no "truth." Just your own personal judgement call as to what you prefer for whatever your subjective reasons are.

But truth? Well, truth isn't always sweet and balanced. Something's either true or it's not. An aggressive approach to establishing what is true is, well, necessary.

So, yeah, I would like to get to the point where I could win every debate, within the parameters of honest and factual presentation. It's probably impossible, but that is the goal. Not just because I like winning, but because that would mean that I've found the truth.

If I one day found the position and argumentation that no one can defeat, that would mean I've probably found the truth -- or at least as close to true as anyone can currently find.

The undefeatable hypothesis eventually becomes the scientific theory or law -- the truth. That it can't be defeated and that all of the evidence supports it is what makes it so.
 
Last edited:
Your right, I shouldn't have assumed this was referring to a specific debate, it just seemed like you and HM were referring to a specific occurrence.

Let me expand on the rest though, in a more general sense. I'm running on the assumption there's no actual set of established rules specifically regarding this. You could argue responsibility for knowing all facts presented over the course of a debate. You could spend pages of ad homs and pointless back and forth telling your opponent that they need to look it up and why. Maybe it comes down to how you see debate. I feel like this is similar to court cases where the defendant gets off on a technicality. You'd be pushing for a technical win with little care for the truth of the matter. It also suggests the possibility that your facts/evidence might be weak and that maybe you're trying to lean on them without having them looked at too closely.

If I were having a debate I was invested in, and it got hung up on this, I would just look it up in either my own or the other persons post history, regardless of which side I was on. Its not that hard to click on someones name and spend 2 minutes looking through their post history.

Debate is an NCAA competition. The various colleges go up against each other in formal events.

There are actually lots of rules. There are even books written on it.

You generally need to start with facts.

Facts are normally data.

You can also present supporting opinions by authorities in the field, although often confused with facts these are not facts.

Conclusions consist of syllogisms -- if/then statements.

If your if/then statements are deductive then they should stand.

If they are inductive then they could be false.

There is a whole host of fallacies first determined by Aristotle the ancient Greek and since elaborated by modern critics.

I have a separate thread which lists and explains the more common fallacies however there are hundreds.

Fallacies are tricks that people use to trick you with.

In the NCAA you need only identify that a fallacy was used by your opponent to win the debate point.

To win an NCAA debate you need to score the most points.

Just like on your voting ballots, arguments are phrases as:

Supporting argument

Rebuttal against supporting argument

Opposing argument

Rebuttal against opposing argument

Here on this forum it is more like a food fight. But if you were going to do it right, that's how.

Also, a lot of people here did not go to college and so they have never been taught how to write. So they don't know how to structure sentences into subject/verb/object or paragraphs into intro/body/conclusion. Sometimes you need to point that out to them.

A lot of people here confuse bickering with debating. Big difference.

Have fun !!

:D
 
Did you come here to sharpen your dueling skills? In search of truth? To push a certain view? To channel your aggression into something that won't get you arrested?

I expected that debate would have honed people's arguments and thus I would encounter higher caliber partisans who could help me better understand the other side. But that isn't what I found here.

It turned out that this is as filled with ignorant people who have, not just their own opinion, but also their own set of "facts", as the population at large.
 
Last edited:
The goal of debate is to make everyone think you're right. If that means you use honesty, fallacies, lies, or some other means to get there, so be it. Truth is not important here, but only the perception of the truth.
 
How do you see debate?

Did you come here to sharpen your dueling skills? In search of truth? To push a certain view? To channel your aggression into something that won't get you arrested?

I came here because I was a seventeen year-old kid with an interest in politics and an intent to pursue a career in it. I was an idiot back then, I still am, even at the ripe old age of eighteen (soon to be nineteen), and I still have a LOT to learn. About EVERYTHING.

So I came here to get my ass kicked and to watch other people get their asses kicked, and learn how bet to not get my ass kicked. I figure once I'm correct enough, I'll stop getting my ass kicked.

I also came here to troll for laughs, and because when I've got a career in media, it'll be nice to have at least a few viewers guaranteed.
 
Back
Top Bottom