What are the prerequisites of a good debater?

[Dexter Sinister]

Prerequisites of a good debater? Only two, really.

1. Knowledge. Ya gotta know what you're talking about.
2. Don't make any of these mistakes.

 

[VanIsle]

Prerequisites of a good debater? Only two, really.

1. Knowledge. Ya gotta know what you're talking about.
2. Don't make any of these mistakes.

Dexter I do love that list. It certainly explains where some people find their wording. I think you really only have to know what you are talking about in a true debate. In a discussion, you probably only have to think/believe you know. :smile:

 

[CDNBear]

Is this a thread trying to censor what and how people choose to express themselves?

Certainly not on my part. I have never covertly or openly attempted to have members banned, nor do I support the kind of censorship, that many of my detractors in this thread, have openly contemplated and attempted to have forced upon the entire board.

My participation here was to voice my opinion that I believe a key aspect of good debating is the ability to concede. When attacked for said opinion, I merely offered examples that my detractors would be familiar with.

Sadly, as they proved my point time and time again, when challenged to prove their accusations, they failed to meet the challenge. Then the commentary degraded into nothing more then a pissing contest, and sadly I participated in it. Yes, I admit, I succumbed to the temptation to lower myself.

But it would never cross my mind to censor anyone. All I ask is that they use some commonsense, critical thought or reason, but never to shut up. As you can see, those that find me distasteful, use commentary designed to shut me down, shut me up and push me out. Without ever putting forth any real or substantiated argument. When challenged to prove their accusations, they bypass, skip or out right ignore the invitation.

That is the sign of weak arguments and even weaker minds. Those truly open to critical thought, reason and logic, do not wish to shut down discussion, no matter how distasteful it may be to them. especially when it may explore personal weaknesses. To which I will readily admit, I have many. I have found parts of my demeanor to be left wanting many times over the years.

All of this crap you'r dolling out to JLM is exactly the same
as the crap you gave me some time ago. Do you have this
all printed out, and just copy it every time you are in a
sh**ty mood, or what.
Get off of your fake high horse, come down to earth, get
human, and notice your own shortcomings, no one here is
going to soak up the swill your serving.

I have acknowledged my own short comings, I have even highlighted them in an earlier post. What I don't see is mature and reasoned discussion on the opinion that being able to concede is a key component of debating.

In fact, if you go back to my third post in this thread and follow them until now, you will see where I concede to many logical points made by several members, who's alliances have clouded their over all judgement. I would say you are a far cry from stupid, so your missing those facts must mean something else.

I'm sure you missed them in your haste to blurt out your condemnation of me, your ideologies have left you blind to many factual tidbits over the years. Including a short list of members that openly confirmed, my assessment of you as a partisan sycophant, was spot on.

Although, given your ability to reason, I have no doubt that you do not lack the faculties to discuss this further without conjecture. But I believe you will choose to do so.

 

[Kakato]

For starters folks theres not much for debating that go's on here at CanCon,it's more like a few peeps use it as a tool to post their theorys and try and rally support for their hatred for anything"the man".
Most of the new topic headers show that,the peeps that start them dont want debate,they want to spam you with their propaganda and who cares if it's right or not?

Well I do,the net is a powerfull tool and theres a lot of peeps that use it to push an agenda and nothing more.

I've been on many forums since Gore invented the internet;-) and have seen them progress from open talk discussion forums to what we see today.
I was even a freeper once8Oand a babbler:-?.
I'm allways up for a good debate but havent seen much worth debating lately as the peeps who post the topics dont want to debate.
They just want to push an agenda and damn the torpedo's and facts.

 

[CDNBear]

For starters folks theres not much for debating that go's on here at CanCon,it's more like a few peeps use it as a tool to post their theorys and try and rally support for their hatred for anything"the man".
Most of the new topic headers show that,the peeps that start them dont want debate,they want to spam you with their propaganda and who cares if it's right or not?

Well I do,the net is a powerfull tool and theres a lot of peeps that use it to push an agenda and nothing more.

I've been on many forums since Gore invented the internet;-) and have seen them progress from open talk discussion forums to what we see today.
I was even a freeper once8Oand a babbler:-?.
I'm allways up for a good debate but havent seen much worth debating lately as the peeps who post the topics dont want to debate.
They just want to push an agenda and damn the torpedo's and facts.

Bingo!

 

[JLM]

For starters folks theres not much for debating that go's on here at CanCon,it's more like a few peeps use it as a tool to post their theorys and try and rally support for their hatred for anything"the man".
Most of the new topic headers show that,the peeps that start them dont want debate,they want to spam you with their propaganda and who cares if it's right or not?

Well I do,the net is a powerfull tool and theres a lot of peeps that use it to push an agenda and nothing more.

I've been on many forums since Gore invented the internet;-) and have seen them progress from open talk discussion forums to what we see today.
I was even a freeper once8Oand a babbler:-?.
I'm allways up for a good debate but havent seen much worth debating lately as the peeps who post the topics dont want to debate.
They just want to push an agenda and damn the torpedo's and facts.

Truer words were never spoken........:smile:

 

[JLM]

I see lots of points have been made- mostly positive- if you learn something from a debate, that is one of the main objectives, secondary is trying to prove someone wrong (proving people wrong isn't conducive to good feelings) and thankfully most people aren't out to prove others wrong.

 

[CDNBear]

I see lots of points have been made- mostly positive- if you learn something from a debate, that is one of the main objectives, secondary is trying to prove someone wrong (proving people wrong isn't conducive to good feelings) and thankfully most people aren't out to prove others wrong.

You should look up what a debate is. A debate by its very nature is adversarial. One side is attempting to prove or validate their position, by prevailing over the opposing side with greater evidence or context of the issue.

Good debaters understand the importance of appealing not only to logic and reason but to the emotions of the audience. Argumentative strategies are important and debaters must anticipate the responses of the other debaters and the audience. An in-depth understanding of the topic and not just the main points is absolutely essential for a good debate. A good debater needs to prove not only why his or her position is the right one, but why the opponent’s position is the wrong one.

Link

 

[JLM]

I think in a healthy debate both sides come away with a good feeling about themselves, the victor for having won his point, the opponent because he feels he's learnt something without it having to be rammed down his throat.

 

[CDNBear]

I think in a healthy debate both sides come away with a good feeling about themselves, the victor for having won his point, the opponent because he feels he's learnt something without it having to be rammed down his throat.

This is absolutely true. Given both sides enter the debate knowing they may not be absolutely right.

I will agree, I may not always enter a debate with that in mind. But I can guarantee you, I do not stand alone. There are also circumstances that would negate that opinion. The facts being the most pertinent. When confronted with indisputable fact, one should concede. Circular argument or arguing semantics, is weak and should be avoided at all costs.

Which brings me back to my original position. Being able to concede is the key element to debating. The ability to do so requires maturity and strength. Admitting ones self is wrong, is a great attribute. It may not taste good, but if one is truly able to grow, one must be able to admit defeat. And again, when absolute fact is ignored, dismissed, or otherwise trivialized, I find it stupid. As was pointed out to me, and to which I concede, stupidity is in the eyes of the beholder. I will concede that my reaction to what I see as stupid is not always palatable, nor productive. But none the less, it is still frustrating to attempt to communicate with people who fail to accept certain inalienable facts.

Would you not agree?

 

[JLM]

This is absolutely true. Given both sides enter the debate knowing they may not be absolutely right.

I will agree, I may not always enter a debate with that in mind. But I can guarantee you, I do not stand alone. There are also circumstances that would negate that opinion. The facts being the most pertinent. When confronted with indisputable fact, one should concede. Circular argument or arguing semantics, is weak and should be avoided at all costs.

Which brings me back to my original position. Being able to concede is the key element to debating. The ability to do so requires maturity and strength. Admitting ones self is wrong, is a great attribute. It may not taste good, but if one is truly able to grow, one must be able to admit defeat. And again, when absolute fact is ignored, dismissed, or otherwise trivialized, I find it stupid. As was pointed out to me, and to which I concede, stupidity is in the eyes of the beholder. I will concede that my reaction to what I see as stupid is not always palatable, nor productive. But none the less, it is still frustrating to attempt to communicate with people who fail to accept certain inalienable facts.

Would you not agree?

Absolutely (if I have to give someone a negative rep to make my point, I feel I've failed somehow in my side of the argument.........:lol::lol::lol

 

[CDNBear]

Absolutely (if I have to give someone a negative rep to make my point, I feel I've failed somehow in my side of the argument.........:lol::lol::lol

I bet you do, consistently. And your opinion is based solely on your own perspective, not facts.

Rep isn't about making a point in my opinion. It is about an over all appreciation of ones contributions. When I hand out negative, which is rare. I'm more liberal with positive rep, no matter the point of view I'm congratulating.

From my perspective, when someone is no longer capable of communicating in a meaningful manner, I simply cease to attempt to do so with that person, and assign a negative rep, in hopes that person learns something.

Everyone certainly does not view the reputation system the same.

 

[JLM]

"I bet you do, consistently. And your opinion is based solely on your own perspective, not facts."

Bingo

If you and I are standing a mile apart looking at a mountain- the "facts" of the mountain are going to appear different to each of us, but both of us can be totally correct- from our perpective.

"Everyone certainly does not view the reputation system the same."

Quite likely- I haven't personally seen the system explained.

 

[countryboy]

I see lots of points have been made- mostly positive- if you learn something from a debate, that is one of the main objectives, secondary is trying to prove someone wrong (proving people wrong isn't conducive to good feelings) and thankfully most people aren't out to prove others wrong.

I'm still wondering if we have de baits (oops, I mean "debates") or discussions? Probably both, eh?

 

[JLM]

I'm still wondering if we have de baits (oops, I mean "debates") or discussions? Probably both, eh?

Yep, this thread has turned interesting, but it takes all types, eh?

 

[countryboy]

Yep, this thread has turned interesting, but it takes all types, eh?

Absolutely! That's what makes things interesting. This is a very good thread...I'm learning lots, but the real payoff is that it's hard to get "off track" on this one! :lol:

 

[JLM]

Absolutely! That's what makes things interesting. This is a very good thread...I'm learning lots, but the real payoff is that it's hard to get "off track" on this one! :lol:

You watch- there will be those who find a way......................:lol::lol::lol:

 

[countryboy]

You watch- there will be those who find a way......................:lol::lol::lol:

Ah, we're a "creative bunch", aren't we? :-?

 

[JLM]

Ah, we're a "creative bunch", aren't we? :-?

Or perhaps, destructive! :lol::lol::lol:

 

[talloola]

You should look up what a debate is. A debate by its very nature is adversarial. One side is attempting to prove or validate their position, by prevailing over the opposing side with greater evidence or context of the issue.


Yes, 'evidence', and the 'issue', you got it, so do it.