Debate About Debating!

[Curium]

I was in a debate thread earlier today and I saw this....

Gendou

Personally, I'd like to see a debate thread about the nature of debate, if someone cares to start one.

So I decided, what the heck, let's debate about the nature of debate.

The following was also in the same thread that I mentioned earlier....

Theopneustos

Remember, the goal is to persuade, not offend.

Sinner

Sorry Theo, but not quite. If debate was about persuasion, things like emotional appeals would be valid debate techniques. After all, they persuade people, do they not?

Here is Webster's definition of debate.
Debate - 1.An arguement. 2.The formal discussion of a question in public.


So I guess my point is to see what everyone else thinks about the nature of debate. What takes a debate too far? What makes a debate..a debate? How can we tell if a discussion has in fact become a debate?  

[Mystic_moon15]

Good question i myself have never actually thought about that but it is very interesting and i would personally like to hear the answers to this.  

[Grayed]

Answering only a tiny bit of the topic, I usually try to find middle ground when I debate. I don't suppose that's the most ... effective strategy, but I prefer it.  

[Theopneustos]

Curium

I was in a debate thread earlier today and I saw this....

Gendou

Personally, I'd like to see a debate thread about the nature of debate, if someone cares to start one.

So I decided, what the heck, let's debate about the nature of debate.

The following was also in the same thread that I mentioned earlier....

Theopneustos

Remember, the goal is to persuade, not offend.

Sinner

Sorry Theo, but not quite. If debate was about persuasion, things like emotional appeals would be valid debate techniques. After all, they persuade people, do they not?

Here is Webster's definition of debate.
Debate - 1.An arguement. 2.The formal discussion of a question in public.


So I guess my point is to see what everyone else thinks about the nature of debate. What takes a debate too far? What makes a debate..a debate? How can we tell if a discussion has in fact become a debate?

I find for a discussion, that rhetorics, the art of persuasion, is useful in debating. For the rhetor is not bent on only writing up a five paragraph essay on a certain subject, nor does he plan on making what he is writing about messy. Rhetorics is useful in debating, because it goes beyond five paragraphs. It contains many elements. I shall only present three for now, as I have before. The three are ethos, pathos, and logos.

• Ethos: This is where you get to state your credibility of a certain subject or subjects. Why should the audience listen to you? What is it that you have to offer? Is what you're saying of importance? Before one can do this, they first must know of one's subject and benevolent.
  
  
• Pathos: This is the appeal to emotion. One can be stirred up by either storytelling, metaphors, analogies, etc. What is important is to know what emotions are as well as knowing how to cause the audience to fall into these emotions. For if one is angry, he has not the same judgment as if he were calm.
  
  
• Logos: Logos is the appeal to reason. It deals much with logic and reasoning, of course.

To quote Plato's Gorgias, "What is there greater than the word which persuades the judges in the courts, or the senators in the council, or the citizens in the assembly, or at any other political meeting? - if you have the power of uttering this word, you will have the physician your slave, and the trainer your slave, and the money-maker of whom you talk will be found to gather treasures, not for himself, but for you who are able to speak and to persuade the multitude."

There is much more to rhetorics than these, but I believe they strengthen one who is in a debate. Of course, it should never be used to persuade someone into believing something false, for that would be an abuse to such art.  

[Sinner]

But that's not the point. Debate is more than rhetoric. In fact, it's relatively independant of rhetoric.

All your points refer to how the audience perceives your argument. But in a debate, the victor is not the most eloquent. Winning a debate requires knowledge about the subject being discussed, and the ability to follow and enforce the rules of debate. Sounding better is certainly beneficial, but unnecessary.  

[Gilwen]

Sinner

But that's not the point. Debate is more than rhetoric. In fact, it's relatively independant of rhetoric.

All your points refer to how the audience perceives your argument. But in a debate, the victor is not the most eloquent. Winning a debate requires knowledge about the subject being discussed, and the ability to follow and enforce the rules of debate. Sounding better is certainly beneficial, but unnecessary.

I agree to some extent. But we rarely debate formally here. In actuality, the way we use the word "debate" refers more to a discussion in which two (or more) opposing points are argued, in which case (since most of us are laymen in the realm of theology and ethics), persuasion and rhetoric are quite important.  

[Sinner]

Gilwen

I agree to some extent. But we rarely debate formally here. In actuality, the way we use the word "debate" refers more to a discussion in which two (or more) opposing points are argued, in which case (since most of us are laymen in the realm of theology and ethics), persuasion and rhetoric are quite important.

You leave out an essential part of the debates. The point is to win. Ideas aren't merely being discussed, they're being contested.

And the validity of an idea is not determined on how someone makes it sound, but how well it is supported.  

[Gilwen]

Sinner

Gilwen

I agree to some extent. But we rarely debate formally here. In actuality, the way we use the word "debate" refers more to a discussion in which two (or more) opposing points are argued, in which case (since most of us are laymen in the realm of theology and ethics), persuasion and rhetoric are quite important.

You leave out an essential part of the debates. The point is to win. Ideas aren't merely being discussed, they're being contested.

And the validity of an idea is not determined on how someone makes it sound, but how well it is supported.

Sure, but in informal debate, if both parties are on equal ground with facts, and both have equally valid arguments (which is the case much of the time, especially with theological, and therefore unanswerable, questions) , the person with the better presentation of those arguments "wins" in the eyes of most readers.  

[Sinner]

Gilwen

Sure, but in informal debate, if both parties are on equal ground with facts, and both have equally valid arguments (which is the case much of the time, especially with theological, and therefore unanswerable, questions) , the person with the better presentation of those arguments "wins" in the eyes of most readers.

You can't have a debate like that. You cannot have a debate about something that is completely inconclusive. For example, there cannot be a debate about whether or not the zeeblebubs on Glornax VII have bingbomps. And no, that's not a metaphor.

What you're referring to is a popularity contest.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

While the heart and soul of a debate is facts and a sound position, rhetoric is a large part of the debate itself.

And, Theo, no matter how well I argue that I am God, I will still be wrong. Sophism is fun in-as-of-itself, but is hardly useful in a real debate.  

[Gilwen]

Sinner

You can't have a debate like that. You cannot have a debate about something that is completely inconclusive. For example, there cannot be a debate about whether or not the zeeblebubs on Glornax VII have bingbomps. And no, that's not a metaphor.

What you're referring to is a popularity contest.

There is not conclusive proof for or against the existence of God, yet we "debate" it constantly. It doesn't really come down to popularity. For example, person A has his facts straight, but makes ad hom arguments and swears constantly. Person B has his facts straight, and presents them in a respectful, competent way. Who comes off looking like an idiot? Or, since both present facts well, do both their arguments carry equal weight? What if person C has his facts straight, but has the vocabulary of a two year old? Presentation is important in informal debate.
I'm not saying this is true in formal debate, but "formal debate" is obviously not what goes on in FireFall, GD, EDMR, etc. Maybe "debate" is the wrong word entirely, because it suggests a structured discussion based entirely on presentation of logic and an argument. The discussions that occur here are disagreements and discussions. Very informal. Both you and I are guilty of, instead of making a to-the-point rebuttal (as we would in an actual debate), questioning the way a person has presented his argument in a previous post. Now, why would we do that if presentation is pointless?  

[Theopneustos]

I believe much has been denied, probably due to the lack of understanding. I hope that none have missed one of the three important elements in rhetorics, logos. Logos is the appeal to reason. You either support your side by evidence or reason or both. And again, some have missed what I said, which was, "it should never be used to persuade someone into believing something false, for that would be an abuse to such art."

A lot of people go for both ethos and logos, whether they deny it or not. After all, would you listen to one who has no credibility? If so, why would you? And if this person did not know what he or she was talking about, would you listen to him or her? If so, why would you? What does this person have, that he or she can be trusted? And of logos, it is important for evidence and reasoning, which you see a lot in debating, or should see, anyway.

It's a shame now that many a people use the term rhetoric in a pejorative sense.  

[Theopneustos]

Cometh The Inquisitor

While the heart and soul of a debate is facts and a sound position, rhetoric is a large part of the debate itself.

And we have logos, which is evidence and reasoning or both.

Cometh The Inquisitor

And, Theo, no matter how well I argue that I am God, I will still be wrong. Sophism is fun in-as-of-itself, but is hardly useful in a real debate.

I would wonder, if you did debate that you were God, on how you would demonstrate your reasoning and evidence.  

[Sinner]

Gilwen

There is not conclusive proof for or against the existence of God, yet we "debate" it constantly.

I'm going to have to call you on this.

People do try to debate the existance of God. But it's a very simple debate that is based on an answerable question. Namely, is there evidence for the existance of such a deity?

Without this question, God is not and cannot be debated. And since this question can be answered, your argument falls apart.

Quote:

Maybe "debate" is the wrong word entirely, because it suggests a structured discussion based entirely on presentation of logic and an argument.

...no, it's not the wrong word. At least, not for what I'm talking about.

Which, in fact, is my point. You're not talking about debate, you're talking about persuasion. I actually am referring to the definition.

Theopneustos

And again, some have missed what I said, which was, "it should never be used to persuade someone into believing something false, for that would be an abuse to such art."

But you see, that's the problem right there. With that line, you're equating the success of a debate with the persuasion of others. By saying that debate should not be used to convince others of falsehoods, you're saying that debate is for the purpose of convincing others to follow the truth, not to determine what the truth actually is.  

[Gilwen]

Sinner

Gilwen

There is not conclusive proof for or against the existence of God, yet we "debate" it constantly.

I'm going to have to call you on this.

People do try to debate the existance of God. But it's a very simple debate that is based on an answerable question. Namely, is there evidence for the existance of such a deity?

Without this question, God is not and cannot be debated. And since this question can be answered, your argument falls apart.

Okay, let me rephrase. At this conjecture, the question has not been (and at least on Gaia probably will not be) finally answered by us. Without conclusive and irrefutable evidence at our disposal for or against the existance of God, there cannot be a winner of any given debate about His existance without the presence of rhetoric(except in formal debate, which I address below).

Quote:

Quote:

Maybe "debate" is the wrong word entirely, because it suggests a structured discussion based entirely on presentation of logic and an argument.

...no, it's not the wrong word. At least, not for what I'm talking about.

Which, in fact, is my point. You're not talking about debate, you're talking about persuasion. I actually am referring to the definition.

In that case, you're definitely not referring to the discussions that go on here. The way we use the word "debate" here is basically "an intense discussion of contrary viewpoints." Ask any moderator who worked here this fall. That's pretty much how we determined when a thread had become a debate. Not when it became structured and the participants began formulating rebuttals, etc. So I believed what was under discussion was the common use of the word "debate" as it's used in FireFall, not the common use of the word elsewhere, of which I am well aware.