Common ground

[InfidelRiot]

I saw it mentioned in another thread that common ground is needed for debate, and the idea confuses me because the only mutual understanding that arises in religious debate is agreeing to disagree.

From my perspective, debate is about arguing two completely different view points whereby it is not the job of one to convince the other engaged in the debate to change his way of thinking but rather to simply inform and persuade an unbiased and actively seeking audience in which direction to take. Of course, the debate is only successful if the audience does not already have a preconceived belief system in place because that would completely invalidate the purpose of the debate.

Your thoughts?

 

[Skwim]

Don't believe everything you read.

 

[apophenia]

From my perspective, debate is about arguing two completely different view points ...

Your thoughts?

Well, you're wrong

There are 108 fundamental positions for every argument, not two. There are two kinds of people though, those who think there are two kinds of people, and those who realise that there are 108.

 

[oldbadger]

Because so many people join into debate together, the viewpoints can vary widely, but supposing that just two are debating, one person might produce a point that alters the other's opinion, or even their belief. It doesn't have to be immovable object -v- irrestistable force.

I think that it is good for us all to be as open minded as possible. I have learnt 'loads' in a short time.

I gain the least from sophisticated complex contention and the most from simple discussion. I think the complex sophisticates are lost in their own heads, but that's just my opinion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think debate is more about finding common ground rather than common ground being a starting position for debate.

 

[Thief]

I saw it mentioned in another thread that common ground is needed for debate, and the idea confuses me because the only mutual understanding that arises in religious debate is agreeing to disagree.

From my perspective, debate is about arguing two completely different view points whereby it is not the job of one to convince the other engaged in the debate to change his way of thinking but rather to simply inform and persuade an unbiased and actively seeking audience in which direction to take. Of course, the debate is only successful if the audience does not already have a preconceived belief system in place because that would completely invalidate the purpose of the debate.

Your thoughts?

And the result of debate is then what?
No change of mind at all?

When information is displayed, it should be understood.....
I am presenting my perspective because.....I DO believe I have it right.
And the presentation is then to convince you of such....
and to change your mind.

Without 'information' your tomorrow will be the same as today.
With information you thought feeling and deed will be different.

Not much point in participation ....if there is not reaction.

 

[Thief]

Because so many people join into debate together, the viewpoints can vary widely, but supposing that just two are debating, one person might produce a point that alters the other's opinion, or even their belief. It doesn't have to be immovable object -v- irrestistable force.

I think that it is good for us all to be as open minded as possible. I have learnt 'loads' in a short time.

I gain the least from sophisticated complex contention and the most from simple discussion. I think the complex sophisticates are lost in their own heads, but that's just my opinion.

This is the good stuff.

 

[Pink Top Hat]

I saw it mentioned in another thread that common ground is needed for debate, and the idea confuses me because the only mutual understanding that arises in religious debate is agreeing to disagree.

From my perspective, debate is about arguing two completely different view points whereby it is not the job of one to convince the other engaged in the debate to change his way of thinking but rather to simply inform and persuade an unbiased and actively seeking audience in which direction to take. Of course, the debate is only successful if the audience does not already have a preconceived belief system in place because that would completely invalidate the purpose of the debate.

Your thoughts?

many people are undecided when they enter a debate by the end they usually choose a side

 

[BBTimeless]

Well, you're wrong

There are 108 fundamental positions for every argument, not two. There are two kinds of people though, those who think there are two kinds of people, and those who realise that there are 108.

I think he was being simplistic for the purpose of discussion.

 

[lunakilo]

I saw it mentioned in another thread that common ground is needed for debate, and the idea confuses me because the only mutual understanding that arises in religious debate is agreeing to disagree.

From my perspective, debate is about arguing two completely different view points whereby it is not the job of one to convince the other engaged in the debate to change his way of thinking but rather to simply inform and persuade an unbiased and actively seeking audience in which direction to take. Of course, the debate is only successful if the audience does not already have a preconceived belief system in place because that would completely invalidate the purpose of the debate.

Your thoughts?

Without knowing the context of what was mentioned It is a bit difficult to answer, but one thing that comes to my mind is that you need to agree on some basic things in order to be able to have a meaningful discussion at all.

Somebody started a thread a few days ago called "What does "Socialism" Mean to You?" It illustrates the problem that sometimes different people use the same words but mean different things by them. If you are not aware that the person you are having a discussion with has a different definition of socialism or god or the color green or whatever then your discussion will probably be rather meaningless.

 

[otokage007]

I think a debate is pretty much like a casual discussion with a friend. You both seek truth about a topic, and If it is not possible to seek truth, you simply seek to share your ideas, or to critic the other's ideas. Those who debate to "win" are simply wasting their own time and wasting yours as well.

 

[apophenia]

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfidelRiot
From my perspective, debate is about arguing two completely different view points ...

Your thoughts?

Originally Posted by Apophenia :

Well, you're wrong

There are 108 fundamental positions for every argument, not two. There are two kinds of people though, those who think there are two kinds of people, and those who realise that there are 108.

I think he was being simplistic for the purpose of discussion.

I was being flippant for the sake of amusement, but still making a valid point, which is that most debates, or arguments, tend to polarise into A vs B, which often makes it a struggle of two stereotypical positions. There are very few debates which only have two possible positions, so the fact that this so often happens is telling us something about the human psyche (it has a wetware bug).

This 'binary adversarial' tendency is a curse which humans seem subject to. All around the world, people divide into two primary camps over most issues. Most political systems are based on the 'binary adversarial' syndrome. It is a big subject in itself.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I saw it mentioned in another thread that common ground is needed for debate, and the idea confuses me because the only mutual understanding that arises in religious debate is agreeing to disagree.

From my perspective, debate is about arguing two completely different view points whereby it is not the job of one to convince the other engaged in the debate to change his way of thinking but rather to simply inform and persuade an unbiased and actively seeking audience in which direction to take. Of course, the debate is only successful if the audience does not already have a preconceived belief system in place because that would completely invalidate the purpose of the debate.

Your thoughts?

Debates usually end in common grounds, they break off into smaller debates and move away from the original point, from what I observed, so I'd say common grounds are good so you keep on track of the original question, however.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think debate is more about finding common ground rather than common ground being a starting position for debate.

This.
Nothing can be debated without some shared premises.

But perhaps more importantly, people with seemingly big differences might find they have much in common.
It reminds me of a friend who moved away years ago. He is a Baptist minister. We had more in common
regarding the material world & personal matters than I did with other heathens. We just disagreed about
things which didn't exist (eg, God, angels, Satan). No problem at all.

 

[InfidelRiot]

I can understand finding common ground between an anti-theist and a Christian in terms of respecting one another's beliefs, which would be harder for the anti-theist as opposed to an atheist.

The point I was attempting to make, which is mentioned in the original post, is that when it does come to debate between points of view there is no compromise in most instances. The end result, even if the debate could literally last for a lifetime, would be to agree to disagree.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can understand finding common ground between an anti-theist and a Christian in terms of respecting one another's beliefs, which would be harder for the anti-theist as opposed to an atheist.

The point I was attempting to make, which is mentioned in the original post, is that when it does come to debate between points of view there is no compromise in most instances. The end result, even if the debate could literally last for a lifetime, would be to agree to disagree.

Who needs compromise?
Mutual understanding is better & easier.

It occurs to me that I never debated him on anything.
We simply discussed things...never tried to convince the other of anything.

 

[Thief]

Who needs compromise?
Mutual understanding is better & easier.

It occurs to me that I never debated him on anything.
We simply discussed things...never tried to convince the other of anything.

I'm sorry....it seems you have lumped several different terms together almost in the same breath.

'Discussing' has the synonyms of ...debate, argument, to agitate....

Webster's continues to state...
'...all these mean to discourse about something in order to arrive at the truth or to convince others.'

When you enter debate, there is the risk of having to change your mind.

 

[Man of Faith]

I like to try to find common ground in debate in order to make a stronger case. For example I might use something that both say atheists and theists both agree, like we are here, we have a consciousness, we have personhood, we have morals and ethics, etc... and then go from there, build on that, how did we get to where we are today, etc...

 

[9Westy9]

I saw it mentioned in another thread that common ground is needed for debate, and the idea confuses me because the only mutual understanding that arises in religious debate is agreeing to disagree.

From my perspective, debate is about arguing two completely different view points whereby it is not the job of one to convince the other engaged in the debate to change his way of thinking but rather to simply inform and persuade an unbiased and actively seeking audience in which direction to take. Of course, the debate is only successful if the audience does not already have a preconceived belief system in place because that would completely invalidate the purpose of the debate.

Your thoughts?

Some agreement is needed in a lot of debates. If you can't agree on the base assumption(s) then the debate isn't going to get anywhere. Defining terms is also key to a successful debate

 

[bigjimslade1000]

Presuppositions are what these types of debates are all about...