The Experience of Debate

[Duxwing]

Debate can thrill and enlighten, overjoy and awe: INTPs likely best experience it, their Ti deciding, Ne connecting, Si informing, and Fe evaluating. What are your experiences of debate?

---
Debating a healthy opponent to me feels like with them being reduced to a stick-figure of one-dimensional glass lines with joints of glass nodes, one's beliefs a rigid construction of similar lines that floating around the body connect nodes of knowledge. In one's hand is a glass line with a node at its end, and a rectangular prism of light-blue lines and points against a white background defines the debating field. One can however quickly wherever move, at will summon points, and between them draw new lines.

Each debater attempts to with their wand or logical constructs adjust their and their opponent's beliefs. Changing one's opponent's beliefs gains points, having your belief's changed loses points, and developing new relevant understanding gains points: the debater with the most points wins. Discussions are unscored debates.
---

-Duxwing

 

[Helvete]

What's the point in points in debate? If you get some of your beliefs changed, then hopefully it's for the better; you're not losing anything, it's a gain of knowledge and perception.

 

[doncarlzone]

I'd say most debates are purely ego based. We all like to think we debate to enlighten ourselves or others in particular, but that's rarely the case if ever.

Discussions are unscored debates.

Or discussions are debates without egos.

 

[pernoctator]

Discussions are unscored debates.

Or discussions are debates without egos.

Or neither because discussions ⊄ debates.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

What's the point in points in debate? If you get some of your beliefs changed, then hopefully it's for the better; you're not losing anything, it's a gain of knowledge and perception.

Yes, the whole concept of winning or losing would rather translate to establishing your superiority over another, or forcing/persuading one to accept the idea and this would translate to points.

If something is right and logical, it will be adapted naturally. I don't see any need for scoring or I don't get the idea.

I'd say most debates are purely ego based. We all like to think we debate to enlighten ourselves or others in particular, but that's rarely the case if ever.

Wow, I understand that there is self-affirmation for the winner, but it beats the purpose of the debate, that is to establish the better, the more complete model

 

[Helvete]

I'd say most debates are purely ego based. We all like to think we debate to enlighten ourselves or others in particular, but that's rarely the case if ever.

Yes, the whole concept of winning or losing would rather translate to establishing your superiority over another, or forcing/persuading one to accept the idea and this would translate to points.

If something is right and logical, it will be adapted naturally. I don't see any need for scoring or I don't get the idea.

Wow, I understand that there is self-affirmation for the winner, but it beats the purpose of the debate, that is to establish the better, the more complete model

I think I agree with doncarlzone when points and a winner and loser is involved in debate. It's like a pissing competition, who can shout the loudest to get their points across; I know it's not really like this but when the motive is to win rather than to come to the most logical conclusion it completely changes the game.

You'll be a lot more inclined to reject the others opinion and try to either: Prove them wrong, or put them in a bad light by attacking unrelated things that'll help to undermine their argument. The latter happens in politics all the time and I find it really frustrating to watch lol. It's such a childish way to argue.

 

[Pyropyro]

Discussions about beliefs are just that, discussions. I believe that a debate's first purpose is to learn about each other but egos tend to get in the way and everything turns into a shouting match instead.

A formal debate is kind of boring but the rules at least permit everyone to have equal footing.

If you REALLY want to adjust another person's belief system then it will take some time, true respect and a lot of understanding. Unless you're dedicated to doing that then it's better to just state your beliefs, agree to disagree if necessary, and move on. Egoistic debates will only escalate conflicts, slighted egos and feed the drama-mongers.

 

[Jake]

I'd say most debates are purely ego based. We all like to think we debate to enlighten ourselves or others in particular, but that's rarely the case if ever.

Speak for yourself. It's not my fault you debate for the wrong reasons.

If something is right and logical, it will be adapted naturally.

Apparently you don't live in America.

 

[Helvete]

Apparently you don't live in America.

Unfortunately you can apply this to anywhere in the world. To logical people involved in logical debate this should never happen. So what's going wrong?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I'd say most debates are purely ego based. We all like to think we debate to enlighten ourselves or others in particular, but that's rarely the case if ever.

True but I think it's worse when ideas go unchallenged. Not only is that conducive to ignorance and complacence, but having to think critically about your ideas allows you to see the weak points and where aspects can be improved. This is valuable whether the idea is just a thought or is intended to be carried out or constructed.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Apparently you don't live in America.

^Post of the year nomination.

 

[Jake]

True but I think it's worse when ideas go unchallenged. Not only is that conducive to ignorance and complacence, but having to think critically about your ideas allows you to see the weak points and where aspects can be improved. This is valuable whether the idea is just a thought or is intended to be carried out or constructed.

This. I hate when one side tries to silence the other. I hate when people tell atheists to keep it to themselves. I hate when people tell religious people to keep it to themselves. I hate when people tell racists to keep it to themselves. I hate when anyone is told not to voice their opinions, simply because their opinions are considered undesirable. I may despise what you say (in the case of spirituality and bigotry) or applaud it (in the case of secular humanism) but I will never despise that you are saying it. I'll try to change your mind if I disagree with you, but I'll never try to censor you. If you keep your bad opinions to yourself, I will never know about it and I will never be able to try to convince you otherwise. And if you keep your arguments against my opinions to yourself, I will never be able to learn from you. Keeping one's opinions to oneself is not conducive to progress.

There is, of course, a time and a place for making yourself heard. You don't win my respect or admiration for picketing funerals, no matter what your message is. Go on television, write a book, or organize a parade. But understand how to share your beliefs without being a jerk.

 

[QuickTwist]

I use to be a fierce debater and would do it with almost anyone about almost anything I had an opinion on. I got older, more mature and I started to realize there are better ways to get my point across/change someones mind. Debates are all well and good but only in a formal setting where there are actual points scored. Then again some people are just plain stubborn and wont change their opinion no matter what is said and if they are wrong its game on.