posted
First of all, is there a difference? I tend to think of arguing as petty and debate as sophisticated and intelligent, but is debate just a froufed-up way of arguing?
Second, what is the purpose of each? Has a debate ever changed your mind about anything? What was it?
Third, if you like debating, what is it like for you? Why do you enjoy it? Do you prefer to debate things that are very important to you or less important to you? Why?
I've just come to realize that I hate hate hate arguing, and that if the issue isn't something I really care about, I don't push it. Especially if I won't get hurt by not arguing. If it's something that is very important to me, I will stand up for myself, but I still don't like debating. I'm most likely to jump into a debate if someone I love will get hurt emotionally if I don't.
Is this unhealthy?
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't know this at the time, but I'm glad I never got into formal debating because you prepare to argue both sides and are only told which side you will argue right before you get up. I think that's horrible. My husband did it, of course. His parents always joke about him being a master debater. Which I thought was really gross.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think debating and arguing are the same thing, only with slightly different connotations. Arguing sometimes has an angry connotation, although it doesn't have to. Debate sometimes has an intellectual and fake connotation, but again, it doesn't have to. I prefer the term, discussion, I think.
I think discussion, debate, and argument (if done right) are fundamentally important to being an intelligent person capable of making good decisions. There are two purposes, I think: Firstly, the purpose is to share ideas - convince others of your good ideas, and be convinced when your ideas are flawed. Secondly, the purpose is to learn how to think and understand better, which I think usually occurs no matter what the outcome of a debate is. Many people believe they can think perfectly well on their own, but I think that's wrong - I think one needs to 'check' one's own opinions against other people's, much like you can't be a good writer without having other people read your work and comment.
I believe you have an ethical responsibility to discuss and debate important things - because of the two purposes I gave above. It is your responsibility to make good decisions, especially when it comes to matters that will effect others, such as whether murder is okay, or whether terrorism is justified, or things like that. Someone who doesn't keep his reasoning and understanding skills sharp, or who doesn't keep pursuing new ideas, or who has a close mind has shafted this responsibility.
I'm not sure I'd say I particularly like debate, itself. I do, however, love ideas, and I love sharing ideas. I think they are beautiful works of art, and that without debate they are very difficult to share. Some can be expressed through art or something like that, but many require a more interactive method. So I guess I like debate indirectly.
Is not debating unhealthy? I'd have to say yes. Debate/Argument/Discussion is a medicine that can taste bad sometimes, but for the reasons I gave above, it's dangerous to not take that medicine. And it's the sort of thing that doesn't have to taste bad, unless you let it. Discussion doesn't hurt you in any real way - it only hurts your feelings if you let yourself get too mad or too annoyed or too offended or too upset by what someone else says. You can learn not to let these things bother you, I think, but not without being in situations where you face these things. It's a skill learned in part through experience, which is possibly the most important thing discussion helps you develop.
Along these lines, I think a lot of Hatrackers are doing themselves (and others) a great disservice when they avoid serious 'discussion' threads.
posted
Sometimes I like to debate and sometimes I don't. I think the important thing is critical thinking, which one can exercise without chiming in. I am always thinking critically, just somedays I feel more gregarious about it.
I've observed that when a discussion on hatrack becomes mostly the same two people for more than 10 turns, they have developed a collusory resistance that doesn't make sense to everyone else and hopefully doesn't make sense to them the next day. There are times when it's no longer exercise, it's just hard headedness.
But to think that all argument constitutes this is equally limited. Am I making any sense? Or am I in a collusion of resistance with myself?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm on the debate team and i love it. It, to me, doesn't feel like arguing. It's like a challenge, I have a few seconds to come up with good points against the other person's points. And usually, no one gets mad, we all have fun, and once its over, we can have a nice conversation with the other team. And defending things I don't believe in, while its not as fun, it's still a good exercise in critical thinking, it's still fun, and in general, it's good to be able to see both sides, not just the side you agree with. And when I'm debating, I like something when neither side feels strongly about it, because then it doesn't get personal. And the debates where we're free to be silly are the best. Ridiculous proposals are the most fun.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
I disagree with Tres. Being willing to stand up for something you believe is important is one thing; being willing to argue for the sake of argument is another. I think the first is crucial. But I'd argue that the second, while it can be useful, is actually quite unhealthy.
Too many on Hatrack -- myself included -- act as though letting go of an argument (even after having made one's point) is a character flaw. I'm working on saying my piece and then only debating new points, if/when they come up. Not that I'm doing all that well, mind . . .
[Edit: silly double negatives
Also, I'm not arguing against formal debates -- those I think are very useful.]
posted
I've been meaning to ask you, are you both Tresopax and Xaposert? It would seem really snarky to register the reverse of someone's name.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Toretha. When it is about unimportant things and is a game and everyone knows it, then it's fun. When it's about important things, then it's important to share ideas and come to something resembling truth or a conclusion. When it's about a civic issue, it's a way of getting everyone's voice out.
I don't like debate when it's a power trip, or intellectualism for it's own sake, or when those debating have different perceptions about the nature of the debate. Since it is communication between two people/sides that disagree, it doesn't have a value by itself. It depends on how it's done.
By its very nature, it's antagonistic. The debate is the agon - in literature, it's the struggle between the protagonist and the antagonist. It provides the story, and it's the dramatic conflict. When conflict of any kind is viewed negatively, debate and the enjoyment of it is seen as a negative trait.
In other words, there are different kinds of debate. Some of them suck, and some lead to wisdom.
quote:Has a debate ever changed your mind about anything?
Yes, debate on Hatrack has changed my mind about many things. *laugh* Few of which I can now think of. *thinks*
Aw, crumb. Since the same discussions seem to come up over and over again, I changed my mind the first few times around. I can't remember.
Okay, the argument that governments of nations do not have the same freedom to choose to sacrifice personal security that individuals do. I was thinking that an individual and a country can act equivalently and be on the same moral level, but I now think that since the government is empowered by the people, betraying them is not within it's rights. In other words, an individual can and in many situations should sacrifice himself, but a government cannot choose to sacrifice its own country. They are charged with protecting the people, and cannot betray that.
What else?
Intellectualism for it's own sake being pointless. (Thank you Leto.) --------
Okay, I thought of another one. As a result of debates on Hatrack, I don't believe groups exist.
There's no collective morality. There's no collective guilt. There is no vicarious virtue. There's no such thing as collective esteem. There's no such thing as collective trustiworthiness. There are only individuals.
Enough individuals together have a force and can and do come together to accomplish marvelous things, but it is temporary. The only permanent connections - of any kind - are between individuals. *needs to think about this more to articulate properly*
posted
I can't debate worth beans, not even in writing when I have time to form my thoughts. I can't carry arguments, and I can't think of good rebuttals until days after the fact. I'm afraid I'm no good in the "debate" threads here. I'm slowly realizing it, and my posts have been less and less argumentative over time. I still like posting in them, but I kind of stay in the eddies of the discussions.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will add my opinion, that in an ideologically hodge-podge community like Hatrack, I think that if the topic is important, I don't think that a truth or a conclusion needs to happen.
I realize you may be talking about a different context, and in the context of were a decision has to be made for a group, then I agree with kat...
posted
Arguing/debating/discussing. It is the story of my life, though not in the formal "debate team" sense. My family could make even mundane things like "pass the salt" into some sort of discussion.
For this reason (unless it comes to mathematics) I am generally non-emotionally involved in a discussion. I get excited and I have fun debating, but if I ever let my emotions be that vulnerable I wouldn't have made it past the age of 3 in my family. The truth is, I barely know how to have a conversation without somebody thinking I'm arguing/debating/discussing, even if in my mind I'm not being confrontational at all.
My participation in the "serious" threads varies. I know I've been vocal on this most recent thread. I enjoy it because it fleshes out ideas and makes me defend things that I wouldn't necessarily talk about here at work. A lot also has to do with the amount of spare time I have at work which runs in cycles. Recently (until yesterday) I had lots, now I have two pressing projects, so you probably aren't going to see me in another debate for a while.
quote:And when I'm debating, I like something when neither side feels strongly about it, because then it doesn't get personal. And the debates where we're free to be silly are the best.
The problem is not that people feel strongly. It is that they get overly serious and defensive, whenever they feel strongly. They start thinking they are getting disrespected, or ignored, or attacked by the other side. This is a problem with people, not debate.
I think all debates should be silly and light-hearted, even when about extremely important issues. We're giving ourselves more credit than we're due if we treat our own words and beliefs as so sacred that they need to be violently or aggressively defended.
quote:I've been meaning to ask you, are you both Tresopax and Xaposert?
Technically, we are the same person, although the two of us don't always get along.
Xap originated on the forum as my evil twin in the Hatrack Play thread, and occassionally serves as a check or counter to my views. However, as of late, he seems to be increasingly sharing opinions with me... I'm not sure what that mean. Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think of debate as being more factual-based than simple arguing. Arguing, for me, is usually more emotional, where debate is more intellectual (you try to keep your emotions out of it, and not take anything personally).
I am always called upon to judge at the debate tournaments at the local high school, and love doing so. In that type of debate, however, there are very clear-cut guidelines and rules, unlike debates here at Hatrack.
I can't say that debate has ever changed my mind on an issue that I already had an opinion "set" about -- however, if it was an issue that I was unaware of, or did not yet have an opinion on, debate has been very good in helping me decide what I believe.
posted
I always view arguing and debate/discussion as the same thing. In my marriage, I felt that "arguing" things out was necessary to make sure a good compromise was reached. (There was no hitting below the belt or raised voices or anything...as I said, it was like debating.) What I just learned (this week in fact) is that my husband is put off by confrontation and feels like my arguing every point is offensive.
So I have learned that while arguing may be the same as debate to me, it is not always so for other people. I do, however, draw a distinction between arguing and fighting.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
