PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
What are the axioms of a quality debate?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That people listen to each others arguments and do not change others peoples arguments on purpose. That people doesn't argue based on absolute truth as if they had evidence for it, but keep an open mind for others ideas and points of views, and finally be able to admit when they are mistaken or wrong.What are the axioms of a quality debate?
That people listen to each others arguments and do not change others peoples arguments on purpose. That people doesn't argue based on absolute truth as if they had evidence for it, but keep an open mind for others ideas and points of views, and finally be able to admit when they are mistaken or wrong.
One reason why formal debates are higher in quality is that there are unbiased judges and arguments are made to them. That eliminates arguments that would be found persuasive only to people who already agree with you (preaching to the choir).
It also eliminates the frustration involved with trying to get an opponent to concede debate points.
In a forum like this one, I think it's a good idea to imagine that panel of unbiased judges, make arguments to persuade them, and let the chips fall.
What are the axioms of a quality debate?
Generally, the most common faux pas is talking about the person not the subject of the debate. That's as true on this forum as anywhere else.
The second is using fallacious arguments that appeal to morality, for/against who they're from, and so on. So, for example, because Trump said something doesn't make it automatically wrong. It's wrong if there are no evidence that supports his conclusion, not because you don't like him or even that he was wrong in the past.
The most common thing people do in debates of that nature is believe that previous errors negate future valid points. That's never the case -- it's always case-by-case analysis of the conclusion that is required. The short is: Attempting to make arguments against people on their past failures to persuade is illogical. Many people tend to forget that and even those that espouse to be logical seeming to fail to display it on this subtle but important point.
It depends on what the debate is about But obviously it would be stupid to debate if both parties ignored any facts.
Actually, no supporting evidence does not make a proposition "wrong".... It's wrong if there are no evidence that supports his conclusion, not because you don't like him or even that he was wrong in the past.
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.
For example, let's say Trump said, "Vaccines cause X", it is valid to question where he got his info from.
Other than that, I agree.
Actually, no supporting evidence does not make a proposition "wrong".
It depends on where the debate is taking place, if its an live event in front of an audience, being skilled at debating and firing off "clever" remarks helps you, especially if the person you debate is not used to it. But if what a person is saying is wrong, it will be wrong regardless of how good they are at presenting their case as one question could cause them to be unable to answer or make them end up in being exposed for not telling the true or not knowing it.Do people win arguments mostly because they have the stronger side, they have the better proof, or they are the more skilled debater?
It depends on where the debate is taking place, if its an live event in front of an audience, being skilled at debating and firing off "clever" remarks helps you, especially if the person you debate is not used to it. But if what a person is saying is wrong, it will be wrong regardless of how good they are at presenting their case as one question could cause them to be unable to answer or make them end up in being exposed for not telling the true or not knowing it.
In a written forum like this, people have time to fact check, so its much easier to point out if a person is wrong or are misunderstanding something, But written debates rarely seem to be all that interesting except for those involved
Which is what usually annoys me when watching these live debates, is why don't the person ask this question!! or why didn't he answer the question that was asked. And obviously its because so many thinks are said and those that debate might not know, so they can't answer. Not the same as saying that they are wrong, but its impossible to remember everything and all details. But it does give a different type of debate.
Not "evidence"; but rather, logical justification. It's important not to confuse these.Not immediately, no... But, evidence is required to properly support any argument in a debate.
No citations from creositesWhat are the axioms of a quality debate?
Not "evidence"; but rather, logical justification. It's important not to confuse these.
What are the axioms of a quality debate?
No citations from creosites