Question of form

[ThePainefulTruth]

OK I'm new here, and this is the first time a board I've been too has made this distinction. What's the difference between discussion and debate?

 

[Quintessence]

I think people view the distinction differently.

When I think debates, I think debates in the old sense that are formal and have to obey certain rules. The only subforum here that maybe approximates that is the one-on-one debates, but that only holds to formalized standards as much as the two people involve do. In other words, true (formal) debates really do not happen on web forums or happen only very rarely.

For informal contexts, I have a different definition for debates. In informal contexts, I tend to view debating as a form of trolling, because the objective is to "win" by convincing everyone else how wrong they are and how right you are. There's no interest in understanding other points of view, and often there's a lot of ego stroking, arrogant posturing, and defaming the other perspectives as stupid, incompetent, inferior, and generally less-than. So yeah, trolling.

Discussions are less formal and do not have rules, aside perhaps from allowing all voices to be heard. There is no impetus to "win" but instead to understand and exchange ideas. Brainstorm. That's a good word for comparison. Sometimes the goal may be to come to a consensus, but agreeing to disagree is an acceptable consensus in discussions.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

In short:

A debate seeks to impart knowledge and convince through argument between selected speakers, and the chief function of the audience is to listen rather than to talk.

The purpose of a discussion is to extract ideas from the audience, whose function is to express those ideas in speech.

The Difference Between a Debate and a Discussion - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

 

[BSM1]

Sometimes the only difference, it seems, is the volume of the shouting.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Sometimes the only difference, it seems, is the volume of the shouting.

Pretty much most of the time. In any case, I think both formats play to the audience, not to mention brawls and riots.

Aren't they, or shouldn't they at least both be efforts toward moving whoever is listening towards the Truth--as opposed to moving toward one side or another?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Pretty much most of the time. In any case, I think both formats play to the audience, not to mention brawls and riots.

Aren't they, or shouldn't they at least both be efforts toward moving whoever is listening towards the Truth--as opposed to moving toward one side or another?

But who defines the Truth in a theological discussion or debate?

 

[moegypt]

OK I'm new here, and this is the first time a board I've been too has made this distinction. What's the difference between discussion and debate?

Discussion is... and Debate is...

may be same

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

But who defines the Truth in a theological discussion or debate?

Objective Truth is defined in any discussion by scientific reason. If Truth enables us to possess knowledge/facts, we go from there using the most reasonable evidence. Also, if a scientific theory has massive amounts of indisputable facts and evidence for it, and none against it, it can be considered virtually proven (e.g. geologic time, evolution, relativity).

BTW, there is also subjective Truth, which is defined by individuals and applies only to them (e.g. beauty, art). Love and justice are combinations of both types of Truth.

Discussion is... and Debate is...

may be same

Ah, I was right again. (I'm on a pretty good roll here.)

 

[BSM1]

Objective Truth is defined in any discussion by scientific reason. If Truth enables us to possess knowledge/facts, we go from there using the most reasonable evidence. Also, if a scientific theory has massive amounts of indisputable facts and evidence for it, and none against it, it can be considered virtually proven (e.g. geologic time, evolution, relativity).

There's the rub. Theological truth is mostly based on faith and interpretation. So one can only hope for an amiable stalemate. And I am a firm believer that everyone has to find their own theological truth. That, by design, will always leave the truth up for discussion or debate.

 

[Riverwolf]

In context of these forums, a debate features an argument that is open to be criticized, whereas a discussion (generally) doesn't.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

There's the rub. Theological truth is mostly based on faith and interpretation. So one can only hope for an amiable stalemate. And I am a firm believer that everyone has to find their own theological truth. That, by design, will always leave the truth up for discussion or debate.

If you're saying that the likelihood of the existence of God is a 50-50 proposition, and probably always will be, I agree 1000%.

But...

If we assume that God exists, we may then eliminate or deduce certain characteristics God would have, given the evidence of the universe around us--if He indeed does happen to exist. :candle:

 

[Desert Snake]

I think people view the distinction differently.

When I think debates, I think debates in the old sense that are formal and have to obey certain rules. The only subforum here that maybe approximates that is the one-on-one debates, but that only holds to formalized standards as much as the two people involve do. In other words, true (formal) debates really do not happen on web forums or happen only very rarely.

For informal contexts, I have a different definition for debates. In informal contexts, I tend to view debating as a form of trolling, because the objective is to "win" by convincing everyone else how wrong they are and how right you are. There's no interest in understanding other points of view, and often there's a lot of ego stroking, arrogant posturing, and defaming the other perspectives as stupid, incompetent, inferior, and generally less-than. So yeah, trolling.

Discussions are less formal and do not have rules, aside perhaps from allowing all voices to be heard. There is no impetus to "win" but instead to understand and exchange ideas. Brainstorm. That's a good word for comparison. Sometimes the goal may be to come to a consensus, but agreeing to disagree is an acceptable consensus in discussions.

^ That's basically it.