• 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!

Quality debates

Enoch07

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
AT-AT said:
Actually, if a person isn't qualified to speak on a subject, and said subject requires an education, pointing it out is a valid argument.
Click to expand...

Just about everybody on these forums are not actually qualified to speak on most issues. Most are just regurgitating others thoughts.

Some people think that just because they ally themselves with a certain viewpoint that they automatically have an advantage. Like a certain someone who talks about critical thinking a lot, but I have yet to see them actually execute any.
 
PoetPhilosopher

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
Enoch07 said:
Just about everybody on these forums are not actually qualified to speak on most issues. Most are just regurgitating others thoughts.

Some people think that just because they ally themselves with a certain viewpoint that they automatically have an advantage. Like a certain someone who talks about critical thinking a lot, but I have yet to see them actually execute any.
Click to expand...

You are right. I'm about to make a post on the subject. And it may clear the air on what's been bothering me and how I've been eating myself from the inside out by supporting liberalism.
 
dybmh

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Audie said:
No citations from creosites
Click to expand...

Please help me with this? I searched for creosites, and all the results are pointing to creosote residue in a chimney.

Can you give an examples of citations from creosites?
 
joe1776

joe1776

Well-Known Member
AT-AT said:
Do people win arguments mostly because they have the stronger side, they have the better proof, or they are the more skilled debater?
Click to expand...
First, I think you have to identify the game being played. For the argumentative players, they win if they completely frustrate their opponent. It has nothing to do with actual debate. It's just a matter of learning a handful of dirty tricks.

If the game is actual debate, I think the key is being right going in. So, it has to be a topic you have given considerable thought to previously.

If you opponent comes up with an argument you haven't considered that defeats your position, give it up quickly and move on. But, if they make a counter that puzzles you, and you're sure you're right, then you can be confident of finding the counter-to-their-counter with more thought.
 
Last edited:
Darkforbid

Darkforbid

Well-Known Member
And obviously the misuse of fallacies most common being argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. It is also called argument to logic, the fallacy fallacy, the fallacist's fallacy, and the bad reasons fallacy.
 
usfan

usfan

Well-Known Member
Changing minds is not the goal of a rational debate. It is incidental, if it even occurs.

The goal of a rational debate should be to present a premise clearly, with supporting evidence. Others may then rebut those points, with evidence and arguments of their own. The original poster can then counter the rebuttal.

It should not take long, if fallacies are not introduced, that deflect from the premises and muddle the points.

Premise ==> facts + arguments
Rebuttal ==> facts + arguments
Repeat as needed

No declarations of victory, or fist pumps are appropriate, in a rational debate. REASON decides, and there is no panel of judges on written forums.
 
Darkforbid

Darkforbid

Well-Known Member
usfan said:
Changing minds is not the goal of a rational debate. It is incidental, if it even occurs.

The goal of a rational debate should be to present a premise clearly, with supporting evidence. Others may then rebut those points, with evidence and arguments of their own. The original poster can then counter the rebuttal.

It should not take long, if fallacies are not introduced, that deflect from the premises and muddle the points.

Premise ==> facts + arguments
Rebuttal ==> facts + arguments
Repeat as needed

No declarations of victory, or fist pumps are appropriate, in a rational debate. REASON decides, and there is no panel of judges on written forums.
Click to expand...

That's critical review not debate
 
Road Less Traveled

Road Less Traveled

Active Member
AT-AT said:
What are the axioms of a quality debate?
Click to expand...

No offense taken, open-mind, actual listening and responding as opposed to reaction, or attacking. No expectations that one will sell/satiate another, no false accusations, no construing of words or interpretation. In other words.... rare nature and qualities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top