Theory of Debate

[Graillik Tur]

It has come to my attention that we here at PO do like to debate from time to time but most of us don't have the necessary skills or experience in the field to do battle on the levels that some of us possess.

So I open a very light course into the the world of debate if anyone wishes to learn here. I will take questions and comments alike and try to show varias methods of thought and debate.

Today's rule and the first:

it's the same as the first rule of poker. Leave your emotions at the door, pray on those of your opponent. This may seem harsh, but it is the best and fastest way to deal with those that are not used to the realm of debate.

Use the current opinion posts if you want to delve some great questions out. I really hope this post goes well, and maybe we can put this whole flaming war to an end and reopen some other topics that have been closed and remain nameless.

Salut.

[whiteypoker]

I hope you have better luck than I did. It is a great first rule though.

[shadokastur]

I just wanted to be clear for myself so I went and looked up 'debate' at www.m-w.com (Merriam Webster) and found this:

Main Entry: 1de·bate
Pronunciation: di-'bAt, dE-
Function: noun
: a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides

This made 'debate' look like it meant something like a contest which is something to the contrary of what I've always believed it meant.
Then I wasn't too sure of the definition of 'contention' so I looked it up as well and came up with this:

Main Entry: con·ten·tion
Pronunciation: k&n-'ten(t)-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English contencioun, from Middle French, from Latin contention-, contentio, from contendere
1 : an act or instance of contending
2 : a point advanced or maintained in a debate or argument
3 : RIVALRY, COMPETITION
synonym see DISCORD

Which proved to me that here Graillik Tur IS correct. Debate IS a contest and, as such, victory is only awarded to the 'winner'. The winner in this sense is the person who, by whatever means is most efficient, gets his point agreed upon to be the superior one.

Unfortunately for some, since this is a debate and not an informal discussion, the means to the end of being declared the victor can be myriad and at times even within the realm of subterfuge. (Just in case, here's the definition to 'subterfuge'):

Main Entry: sub·ter·fuge
Pronunciation: 's&b-t&r-"fyüj
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin subterfugium, from Latin subterfugere to escape, evade, from subter- secretly (from subter underneath; akin to Latin sub under) + fugere to flee -- more at UP, FUGITIVE
1 : deception by artifice or stratagem in order to conceal, escape, or evade
2 : a deceptive device or stratagem

I would like to draw attention not to the 'deception' part of the definition but more so to the 'stratagem' part. I believe therein lies the key to clear up this whole thing. (Once again, a definition:)

Main Entry: strat·a·gem
Pronunciation: 'stra-t&-j&m, -"jem
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian stratagemma, from Latin strategema, from Greek stratEgEma, from stratEgein to be a general, maneuver, from stratEgos general, from stratos camp, army (akin to Latin stratus, past participle, spread out) + agein to lead -- more at STRATUM, AGENT
1 a : an artifice or trick in war for deceiving and outwitting the enemy b : a cleverly contrived trick or scheme for gaining an end
2 : skill in ruses or trickery
synonym see TRICK

Like any army's General or team's Head Coach the point is to OUTWIT your opponent in order to be declared the 'victor'. But notice that this kind of outlook cripples the effective exchange of ideas and smothers their growth. When the goal is to win, what can be learned except tactics? I thought 'debate' meant a simple exchange of ideas but it seems, by the nature of the word itself, that I was terribly wrong and I apologize for the misconception on my part.


REY

[Shurikane]

Well! Knowing that, I think I'd rather stick to casual discussions...

[Silver Adept]

As would I. I did evidentiary debate in high school, and at the time, I thought it interesting - the feeling you got over using your superior evidence to overwhelm your opponent was worth pursuing.

That feeling has passed. Because the purpose there was to overwhelm, not to actually listen to what was being said or learn about the issues at hand. I like much better being a Crisis Director for Model UN - you're trying to get the kids to learn a few things and to make good decisions and come to consensuses.

I agree with Shadokastur - when the goal is to be the victor, other things become subject to it, often to the detriment of the entire group engaged. It may lead to...unpleasant...things.

[Graillik Tur]

Well I'll be damned. How quickly everyone is picking this up. This is absolutely amazing! I applaud you all.

Sub Lesson 1.

Casual Conversation vs. Debate.

The difference in these two is the fact that Casual Conversation is more of an idea that states everyone involved is somewhat in agreement on something. In a debate you are opposed in opinions. In an argument, say with your parents or lover you both are working off of ususally emotion or personal experience. Debate differs again because you have information to draw from written by authors of old and new.

Now there are forms of debate that do not necessarily have to end in a clear 'viktor' but are a definite exchange can be had.

Now understand that every exchange leads to a confrontation. One party will inevitably be slighted and then you have a debate on your hands. This is why Lesson 1 is so important.

Also, Lesson 2. In order for the exchange you 3 are talking about to occur with un-liken minded people you must go in with the idea that perhaps you are wrong. And that such a thing as right and wrong exist.

I will discuss this important aspect of intillectual exchange and debate tomorrow I hope. I will have to think and research exactly how to phrase it.

But you have all come over half way to understanding the most lucrative form of intellectual exchange.

Salut.

[shadokastur]

[Graillik Tur]

Yes, but in both of those models your looking for a common objective. In the posts so far, we are looking at an objective that is more correct than the other, not formulating a theorm that is most acceptable.

In order for the model your looking for all parties must be looking for a singular theorm to get too. We've already postulated that all parties involved are opposed. Therefore your model can not apply.

Debate is a lucrative form of problem solving because what it should cause you to look at your views, make sure there are as few holes as possible in them, and know what your opponent is going to come at you with. The only way to know what your opponents views are, is to study them. This causes you to double your efforts in learning all about the entire topic. It also opens up the field for ideas that neither party would have thought of till faced with the opposition that some other thinker will bring.

Lesson 3.

In debate you are not only held accountable for your own position, but also for knowing the position and education of your opponent. You can not stop all the damage dealt to your platform from your opponent, only minimize the damage.

Also let me make it a point here. Debate, much like life is true warfare. Whether you believe this or not doesn't matter. You are going to be faced with troubling situations everyday. It is in this battlefield, and fields like it that you test your metal and merit before real life may throw it your way.

Salut. Look at the Philosophy Theory Posts on a similar topic.

[Excel Zero]

I guess to me debate is a waste of time. I don't think that there should be rules period.

Example...If I was debating there should be no victor...the only victor is idea. If I get someone to at least hear my voice and opinions, then I am done...it is then up to that individual to decide to follow me or the other.

When I watched the few Presidentail debates I have seen, I always find it weird that there is a victor when it comes to free speech and ideas. It goes back to the fallacy of Universal Truth. How can someone decide who wins in an abstact contest? It's not a concrete contest like football where in if the Packers score 34-31 over the Vikings, the Packers won.

I guess I am just saying trying to put rules and definition on abstract ideas like debate, feelings, and emotion is strange to me. But then If I stick to my argumanet I have to agree that to someone else, putting rules on is the right thing to do.

To each his own I guess

End of line

Excel

[shadokastur]

Ok. Even the realms of religion and politics all seek to obtain the same goal. That is: the optimal living circumstances for ALL humankind. If we can agree on this point then the only arguement that can exist afterward is that everybody has an opinion on how this can be reached based on their own personal experiences and a LEARNED model of morals/ethics that society and our respective environments bequeath to us. True?

If we can solve this point then even the origin of debate becomes clear.