Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
"Alright, ... who let the idiot that "strongly agrees" with the statement in here?"
-
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!
Important Questionnaire #13: A Civil, Respectful, and Welcoming Environment
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
In general terms I think that is a distinction without a difference. The only time it would be significant would be if it was some kind of formally moderated structured debate, which generally doesn't happen here (if at all).
You mean like a political debates persuading voters.
I see debate as an open invitation to critic for the process of entertainment or learning. I see discussion as a forum for exchanging ideas with no critic.
Debate Presents an argument, defends the argument and responds to critics.
Discussion Presents an idea seeking the value of the idea from similarly minded person's
joe1776
Well-Known Member
I try to think of a formal debate such as one might encounter in college. The panel of judges weighs both the argument and the conduct of the debaters. When I can remember to use it, that device eliminates the urge to retaliate in kind when my opponent is the argumentative type dragging down the quality of the debate..
I have gotten some new ideas since my last reply to you on this and will be revisiting the idea of implementing something like this. I'll bring it up in a different thread on a different date. I think I have some ideas that will make it possible.
Didn't mean to post that it was accidentally included in the other reply because I realized what you meant. A respond to your response would be.
Formal debates allow for research and limit the materials that can be included but that being said creating emotional response in your opponent can create a win you just can't be that aggressive; whereas, your argument seems to be about stumbling you opponent only. On the RF debates are spur of the moment, lacking both verifiable facts and limitations on subject matter so it is a difficult comparison.
Might be a troll..."Alright, ... who let the idiot that "strongly agrees" with the statement in here?"
ditto
One of the challenges I see in all this is clarifying differences between debate and discussion for all. Often people are using different notions. One side will think it's a debate while the other sees it as a discussion. For this reason I didn't vote on this poll.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
You are taking my suggestion further than I intended.
By imagining a panel of unbiased readers, such as exists in a panel of judges, online debaters will focus on the argument and avoid creating the argumentative nonsense and responding to it. I'm not suggesting that the quality in RF can rival a college debate.
I think to really have 'debate' threads, there would need to be some structure. I was amazed teaching at university level how few students had any idea of how to debate a topic even in a semi-formal way...that is, stating a topic, the debatants arguing pro or con, critiquing and responding to critiques, and then ending the debate after a couple of rounds back and forth with summary statements...It doesn't have to be formal, but it would sure help if people understood in general the format...
Otherwise, 'debate' is mostly just arguing, imo
Otherwise, 'debate' is mostly just arguing, imo
Yes, a formal debate follows a set, agreed-upon format, as well as having just a few participants, who might typically have a limited amount of time to speak.
Sometimes, newspapers might have different columnists take a "pro" or "con" view on a given topic, so that readers can look at the main or most persuasive arguments from both sides. I also see this in voter information ballots when they review the different propositions, one can find arguments "for" or "against." Generally it's done without any of the participants interacting with each other, although they will usually reference the other side's argument or try to anticipate and address possible counter-arguments.
A lot of it also depends on the issue or topic being discussed or debated. Usually for serious, relevant, and/or important topics of the day, a lot of people might already have an interest in it and are in the process of forming an opinion or taking a stand on it.
If someone introduces a topic which is way out of left field, then people might not be prepared for it - and they may not be interested enough to participate or watch a formal debate on the subject.
I think that's a great idea. You could set it up with a panel of neutral judges that knew something about formal debate, and then the judges could vote privately, and provide a score. When I did that at school, the most challenging aspect was to demonstrate to the judges that they were to judge the debating, not just agree with whichever side they personally favoured.
Yeah, that was one of the problems I encountered with my students...separating the debate from the content, and themselves from the content...
I'm not sure how such an arrangement could be set up on RF...and personally, I could be happy with just general guidelines and volunteers (I'd be willing to try it) rather than a more formal organization/structure...
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
This is perhaps the most interesting question put so far in this series of threads.
It is pretty well impossible to give a straight answer.
One of the main differences between debates and discussions in these forums, is who can take part.
Debates, by the rules, are generally highly restricted and those that can join in are usually from the same religion or group of religions. So do little to bring together or divide the general membership at all.
Debates on these forums, as has been previously mentioned. Are largely arguments, or argumentative debates, rather than something an academic would recognise as a debate. That being said, they have a better chance of clearing the air on matters of dogma or the like, than a simple discussion would, as the rules permit you to be more forceful in a debate. However they also provide a greater opportunity to get totally out of hand.
When it comes to discussions . They generally attract a wider audience and even when In a restricted forum, usually allow respectful questions from outsiders. However it would sometimes be hard to tell the difference between a respectful debate, and most discussions. Sailing close to the wind seems to be an art form enjoyed by many members.
Be that as it may, I do not see any alternative but to continue with both. However confusing the distinction can some times be.
As to the question as put....
I sat firmly on the fence.
It is pretty well impossible to give a straight answer.
One of the main differences between debates and discussions in these forums, is who can take part.
Debates, by the rules, are generally highly restricted and those that can join in are usually from the same religion or group of religions. So do little to bring together or divide the general membership at all.
Debates on these forums, as has been previously mentioned. Are largely arguments, or argumentative debates, rather than something an academic would recognise as a debate. That being said, they have a better chance of clearing the air on matters of dogma or the like, than a simple discussion would, as the rules permit you to be more forceful in a debate. However they also provide a greater opportunity to get totally out of hand.
When it comes to discussions . They generally attract a wider audience and even when In a restricted forum, usually allow respectful questions from outsiders. However it would sometimes be hard to tell the difference between a respectful debate, and most discussions. Sailing close to the wind seems to be an art form enjoyed by many members.
Be that as it may, I do not see any alternative but to continue with both. However confusing the distinction can some times be.
As to the question as put....
I sat firmly on the fence.
But of what interest is an unconnected, irrelevant idea? "Bears are larger than cats" OK...so?
"Similarly minded": "Yep." "I agree." "Yes, they are." Of what interest is an unexamined unexplored idea?
To discuss an idea is to criticize it; to point out confirmatory or contradictory evidence. To say why you agree or disagree with it.
I'm still seeing a lot of overlap.