• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Debate and Discussion

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Debate seems to be more aggressive because there historically can be a 'winner' but you can't really win a discussion.. haha :p
this could be true; especially if the discussion is riddled with subjective statements that aren't necessarily indicative of the overall situation.


case in point:

being in the military doesn't make you a better/worse person

vs

being in the military makes you a better or worse person based on posters opinion.

the first statement is a discussion
the second is a subjective debate


so then why allow subjective statements in a discussion?
isn't the discussion already distorted when subjective statements are made vs using research, investigative information? unbiased facts?
 
Last edited:

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Who made you the boss of everything ?
Anyway, you haven’t even given a definition of the difference. Fail.


that's what i'm after. a definition of difference; so that i can understand where to post based on the difference.
 

Howard Is

Lucky Mud
that's what i'm after. a definition of difference; so that i can understand where to post based on the difference.

A debate involves a proposition which is analysed and argued by, usually, two opposing sides. It is adversarial in nature.

A discussion has a subject matter open for any kind of interpretation or general comment, not necessarily proofs and refutations. It is social in nature. Or it used to be, before everyone went aggressively insane.

We could discuss that idea, meaning generally ruminate and shoot the breeze, or we could take sides and debate whether everyone has actually gone aggressively insane in recent decades, or whether I’m just full of ****.

Does that help ?
 
Last edited:

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
A debate involves a proposition which is analysed and argued by, usually, two opposing sides. It is adversarial in nature.
this would be more like theory and conjecture?

A discussion has a subject matter open for any kind of interpretation or general comment, not necessarily proofs and refutations. It is social in nature. Or it used to be, before everyone went aggressively insane.
this would be more like personal opinion and subjective comments?
 

Howard Is

Lucky Mud
A debate...
this would be more like theory and conjecture?

More like presenting and refuting evidence for the proposition. In a debate, each side is certain it has the correct view.

A discussion...
this would be more like personal opinion and subjective comments?

Yes. Not rigorous. Exploratory. Not adversarial. Those taking part may be just curious or have a personal interest in the subject.

Discussions don’t have winners. Debates do. Everyone thinks they won of course. There are organised debates in schools and public speaking organisations for example. That is a team thing, maybe three or four per side. Each side takes turns presenting a speaker, until everyone has spoken, and at the end a winning team is declared.

There are ‘political debates’ on TV too. Once again, it is about presenting and refuting evidence, not just talking in an unstructured way like a discussion.
 
Last edited:

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
please explain clarification of opinions?

I can only do it by example

So what is your religion? I'm a Catholic. What made you a catholic? My parents. There is no digging no pressing or attack. Allowing the person to respond as they feel without challenging their belief. You are just gathering information about the person's involved out of interest in that person.
 

Electra

Active Member
this could be true; especially if the discussion is riddled with subjective statements that aren't necessarily indicative of the overall situation.


case in point:

being in the military doesn't make you a better/worse person

vs

being in the military makes you a better or worse person based on posters opinion.

the first statement is a discussion
the second is a subjective debate


so then why allow subjective statements in a discussion?
isn't the discussion already distorted when subjective statements are made vs using research, investigative information? unbiased facts?

facts are always biased in one way or another ;p imo
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
facts are always biased in one way or another ;p imo
so after witnessing a car wreck, the statement, "I saw a traffic accident, or car wreck" would be biased to you?

how can an observed event, experience be biased unless it is qualified with emotional labels?
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
I can only do it by example

So what is your religion? I'm a Catholic. What made you a catholic? My parents. There is no digging no pressing or attack. Allowing the person to respond as they feel without challenging their belief. You are just gathering information about the person's involved out of interest in that person.


thank you
 

Howard Is

Lucky Mud
There is no digging no pressing or attack. Allowing the person to respond as they feel without challenging their belief. You are just gathering information about the person's involved out of interest in that person.

Yeah. Those were the days. :(
 

Electra

Active Member
so after witnessing a car wreck, the statement, "I saw a traffic accident, or car wreck" would be biased to you?

how can an observed event, experience be biased unless it is qualified with emotional labels?

It may not be biast for the viewer but as soon as they tell some one it becomes biast (because it is what they saw - not the other.)
Does that make sence?
 
Top