Great! I'll remember to use monkeys next time we have an debate... in the event of defensiveness, of course
Last edited:
How to debate.
- Thread starter AUM
- Start date
Great! I'll remember to use monkeys next time we have an debate... in the event of defensiveness, of course
Sookie no offense but you did take what she said way too personally, I don't even think what thedaringhattrick intially said was directed at you specifically.. ironically this is one example of how not to debate. Don't assume opinions are personal attacks against you, because usually they aren't.
@sookie and TDHT: Breath in and breath out, that's all I can say. Remember we're discussing ideas here and I'm sorry that things got a little iffy for you two since both of your points have the right reasoning behind them. Lets keep discussing here, but leave the misunderstanding behind us shall we?
Alright, proceed.
Alright, proceed.
@sookie and TDHT: Breath in and breath out, that's all I can say. Remember we're discussing ideas here and I'm sorry that things got a little iffy for you two since both of your points have the right reasoning behind them. Lets keep discussing here, but leave the misunderstanding behind us shall we?
Alright, proceed.
Heehee. Thank LD. I didn't take any of this personally; I just found this an interesting study in art of debate
If people realized that I'm always right and that they're always wrong, debates wouldn't be necessary.
It's okay that you're always wrong when you disagree with me; I still love you all
(added to lighten the mood and humor)
It's okay that you're always wrong when you disagree with me; I still love you all
(added to lighten the mood and humor)
@sookie and TDHT: Breath in and breath out, that's all I can say. Remember we're discussing ideas here and I'm sorry that things got a little iffy for you two since both of your points have the right reasoning behind them. Lets keep discussing here, but leave the misunderstanding behind us shall we?
Alright, proceed.
I was never upset. Thanks for the support though
For me, I try to be unemotional in debates, and more factual. There are debates where I can get emotional, so I try hard not to enter those, because I know I will get unreasonably defensive.
I used to advocate for foster kids rights, and one of the things that used to really get under my skin, is when a foster parent would say, "All you people do is make foster parents sound like abusive nasty monsters!" Obviously I'm paraphrasing here. What I was really trying to say is that 1 out of 2 foster children have a story of abuse in foster care, and those are really high numbers. There were some people I could never get to understand that it wasn't attacking them personally - if they were good foster parents, then they should feel concerned about the bad ones, and more patient with the kids they're taking care of that may have been abused in previous homes.
Anyway, I learned not to debate with foster parents, because it always came down to: "I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU!" "YES YOU ARE!" "NO I'M NOT!"
Sigh.....
Edit: The one thing I always wanted to get across and could never come out and say, is "It's not always about you...."
I used to advocate for foster kids rights, and one of the things that used to really get under my skin, is when a foster parent would say, "All you people do is make foster parents sound like abusive nasty monsters!" Obviously I'm paraphrasing here. What I was really trying to say is that 1 out of 2 foster children have a story of abuse in foster care, and those are really high numbers. There were some people I could never get to understand that it wasn't attacking them personally - if they were good foster parents, then they should feel concerned about the bad ones, and more patient with the kids they're taking care of that may have been abused in previous homes.
Anyway, I learned not to debate with foster parents, because it always came down to: "I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU!" "YES YOU ARE!" "NO I'M NOT!"
Sigh.....
Edit: The one thing I always wanted to get across and could never come out and say, is "It's not always about you...."
Last edited:
So, some time ago I made this list of the things to include when discussing an issue, I don't know if some of you could enlighten me with your knowledge and point out anything that I am missing. In order to maintain a good debate you must have:
-A solid argument
- At least two people in the discussion
-Two sides of the issue (ex. Pro-life/Pro-choice)
-A mediator
-Devils Advocate
-Open-mindness
-Facts/proof
Anything else?
-A solid argument
- At least two people in the discussion
-Two sides of the issue (ex. Pro-life/Pro-choice)
-A mediator
-Devils Advocate
-Open-mindness
-Facts/proof
Anything else?
May- In all honesty I did not. I was stating a fact. If I had added a monkey like I wanted too you guys would realize that.
I was trying to be respectful of TDHT by not using it. So everyone thinks I was mad when I am not.
Actually it is kind of funny. I have said it about 7 times. People are still saying that I am mad.
I was not and am not.
See I am jumping up and down. Just like I was before. I had a realization that I dont need to get self worth from others.If you guys want to believe I was mad that is fine. There is nothing I can do about it
Well, quit having your monkey jump up and down! That makes me mad!
I'm just teasing Sookie. I read the thread and have no opinion - if you say you're not mad, I think we all believe you.
I'm just teasing Sookie. I read the thread and have no opinion - if you say you're not mad, I think we all believe you.
I would take out facts and proof - what if it's a moral/gray issue?
Last edited:
Well, quit having your monkey jump up and down! That makes me mad!
I'm just teasing Sookie. I read the thread and have no opinion - if you say you're not mad, I think we all believe you.
I would take out facts and proof - what if it's a moral issue?
Hmm good observation.Using as an example what about psychologist/philosophers like Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan that people base their morals on a pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional level. Couldn't that be enough proof to present to the opposing party?
Exactly. Proof is arbitrary, facts and evidence can change in a blink of an eye, so I don't know how much truth there is in our existing facts. Remember when it was a fact that the planet was flat but then somebody came and made us realize that that wasn't the case. Same thing can be said about things that are currently stated as "facts" but oh well, a civilized human being cannot be properly treated as a knowledgeable individual as long as he doesn't present himself with empirical evidence.
Well, quit having your monkey jump up and down! That makes me mad!
I'm just teasing Sookie. I read the thread and have no opinion - if you say you're not mad, I think we all believe you.
I would take out facts and proof - what if it's a moral/gray issue?
Exactly. You voiced what I wanted to get across. Detachment IS necessary. As soon as there's an emotional reaction, or the anticipation of one, it becomes pointless because there's the danger of taking things too personally.
Of course, the one thing I've neglected to note is that not everyone approaches a debate with the same attitude. Thus, knowing your debate partner is perhaps just as important.
That was my lesson for the day.
Last edited:
May- In all honesty I did not. I was stating a fact. If I had added a monkey like I wanted too you guys would realize that.
I was trying to be respectful of TDHT by not using it. So everyone thinks I was mad when I am not.
Actually it is kind of funny. I have said it about 7 times. People are still saying that I am mad.
I was not and am not.
If you guys want to believe I was mad that is fine. There is nothing I can do about it
No harm done, Sookie.
Holy crap alot has happened since I posted in here... So I'll just answer the follow up as I'm waiting for my study group to get here... anyway...
It depends upon the what is being debated. In social issues thought experiments and doing a play-by-play works well and for anything analytically scrutiny of their procedures tend to be best at disproving. If these do not work then dissenting data from my side may be used and it may act as an intro to my argument.
It's been a while but that is the general flow of how I work
It depends upon the what is being debated. In social issues thought experiments and doing a play-by-play works well and for anything analytically scrutiny of their procedures tend to be best at disproving. If these do not work then dissenting data from my side may be used and it may act as an intro to my argument.
It's been a while but that is the general flow of how I work
Last edited by a moderator:
