How I like to debate

[PoetPhilosopher]

Here are all the ways of online debating I'm familiar with and agree with. There are most certainly more out there, but I stick to these three:

1. The OP presents a lengthy positive claim. The responders then formulate an equally lengthy argument, matching some of the styles of arguments used in the OP, to try to refute them.

2. The OP presents a positive argument. The responders first tackle the terminology used, what terms mean, to ensure the harmony and balance of the statements. If there are serious errors, the OP message is often considered void, as a lot of inaccuracy comes with the tangling of language. If the OP and the responders can never agree on the terminology used, it is then seen that they have little chance of agreeing on further argument.

3. The OP takes on the form of a debate moderator (not necessarily the same as a forum moderator). They present a neutral position, posting info on the subject in the OP. The responders then take positive or negative sides, and can argue with each other if they so wish. The debate moderator might have a personal side, but most of the time, argues inaccuracies in the arguments of both sides.

Additional comments:

Presenting a positive claim of some length is like putting an apple in your mouth, because it's hard to assert anything of length when many of us still get stuck up on simple questions like "What is truth?" So I don't do so often.

 

[Revoltingest]

You are ambitious.

 

[Stevicus]

Here are all the ways of online debating I'm familiar with and agree with. There are most certainly more out there, but I stick to these three:

1. The OP presents a lengthy positive claim. The responders then formulate an equally lengthy argument, matching some of the styles of arguments used in the OP, to try to refute them.

2. The OP presents a positive argument. The responders first tackle the terminology used, what terms mean, to ensure the harmony and balance of the statements. If there are serious errors, the OP message is often considered void, as a lot of inaccuracy comes with the tangling of language. If the OP and the responders can never agree on the terminology used, it is then seen that they have little chance of agreeing on further argument.

3. The OP takes on the form of a debate moderator (not necessarily the same as a forum moderator). They present a neutral position, posting info on the subject in the OP. The responders then take positive or negative sides, and can argue with each other if they so wish. The debate moderator might have a personal side, but most of the time, argues inaccuracies in the arguments of both sides.

Additional comments:

Presenting a positive claim of some length is like putting an apple in your mouth, because it's hard to assert anything of length when many of us still get stuck up on simple questions like "What is truth?" So I don't do so often.

Well, this certainly appears to be a civilized and intelligent way to do it.

However, it's also effective to put forth a bunch of outrageous, unprovable claims, and then declare that anyone who disagrees is the spawn of Satan or a paid CIA shill. Those are the kinds of debates which are the most fun.

 

[PureX]

I don't see debate as being of much use to anyone, except as an ego enhancer. I prefer to engage in conversation with the intent of clarifying, hopefully in ever greater detail, the method of reasoning being employed to reach a given conclusion. To understand such reasoning when it is foreign to me sometimes involves a 'debate' style exchange, but when that exchange devolves into that aforementioned struggle for ego protection/enhancement, I usually disengage. At that point one is no longer 'listening', and the discourse is over, anyway.

I enjoy exploring logic chains (reasoning) to see how they can both illuminate, and mislead us. And I like the challenge of trying to explain my own, in detail, so as to better understand them, and to find my own biases and flaws. When I "pick at" someone else's logic chain, it's not because I want to change their mind, or attack their ego, it's just so that I can better understand how it's tracking in their minds. And if/when I offend someone in doing that, I apologize.

 

[icehorse]

Here are all the ways of online debating I'm familiar with and agree with. There are most certainly more out there, but I stick to these three:

1. The OP presents a lengthy positive claim. The responders then formulate an equally lengthy argument, matching some of the styles of arguments used in the OP, to try to refute them...

This is extra fun because it's also self-referential. In other words, we can apply your rules to the OP itself

(And if we're not careful, we'll disappear up our own navels.)

So I want to make sure I understand your phrase "positive claim". I take that to mean a falsifiable assertion? Another phrase I hear is "factual claim" (which might end up being true or false).

Is this what you're getting it?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

This is extra fun because it's also self-referential. In other words, we can apply your rules to the OP itself

(And if we're not careful, we'll disappear up our own navels.)

So I want to make sure I understand your phrase "positive claim". I take that to mean a falsifiable assertion? Another phrase I hear is "factual claim" (which might end up being true or false).

Is this what you're getting it?

Well this almost never happens, but by negative claim, I mean people using arguments like "I don't believe in God. Prove it."

By positive claim, I mean the people making the assertions.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I have been thinking it over a good deal, and some professional debaters will consider the Burden of Proof to depend on the one who presents an argument a certain way, to such an extent that if someone says "God doesn't exist", they too would have to prove it in some scenarios, as far as I know. A turn-taking.

I don't truly believe you can often prove a negative. You can present a long case against an assertion though.