The Style of Debate in Ancient India

[SalixIncendium]

I came to learn today while listening to a Vedanta talk that the style of debate in ancient India went like this...

If you state something, before I can reply, I must restate to you what you said to your satisfaction. “Is this your position on the subject?” If the answer is “yes,” only then can I reply.

Just imagine how many misunderstandings would be prevented if we used that style of debate here at RF...

 

[Vinayaka]

Interesting.

I used that when teaching, especially in the hallway 'counseling' sessions. It's a useful technique in a lot of situations. Boss needs to use it on me more. Difficult when dealing with ESL types like our priests.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Just imagine how many misunderstandings would be prevented if we used that style of debate here at RF...

Hell's bells. If I tried to do that, I'd forget what I was going to say. Sheesh!

 

[Howard Is]

I came to learn today while listening to a Vedanta talk that the style of debate in ancient India went like this...

If you state something, before I can reply, I must restate to you what you said to your satisfaction. “Is this your position on the subject?” If the answer is “yes,” only then can I reply.

Just imagine how many misunderstandings would be prevented if we used that style of debate here at RF...

On RF ?
Just imagine how that could revolutionise relationships and marriage !

Of course, if debating with a narcissist, they will always say ‘no, that is not what I said or meant’...even if it was !

 

[ManSinha]

“Is this your position on the subject?” If the answer is “yes,” only then can I reply.

While not a debate - this is recognized as a valuable teaching tool in medicine hand-offs where the nurse educator or the patient advocate tries to encourage the patient to tell him/her in the patient's own words what they understood. In my experience in Population Health - it has gone a ways in avoiding misunderstandings about follow-ups and new and discontinued medications. It is called "teach-back". FWIW

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Active listening?

That'll never catch on here!

 

[MNoBody]

gotta dream big
think the impossible things

 

[Valjean]

Not how the Upanishadic dialogues read.

 

[Sunstone]

As @beenherebeforeagain hints, the ancient custom is today found in the art of active listening as one of the key techniques of that art.

 

[Sunstone]

The vast majority of disputes on RF are fundamentally semantic in nature.

One of the most perennial popular ways people on RF fight each other begins with them defining their terms differently. That alone is at least half of all the arguments on this board. What I cannot fathom is how an internet forum populated solely by geniuses can so very frequently fall into arguments that are essentially moronic in nature. It's a mystery.

 

[stvdv]

Of course, if debating with a narcissist, they will always say ‘no, that is not what I said or meant’...even if it was !

"No Contact" is the "Best Contact" when it comes to narcissists
So, be happy, they give it to you on a "golden plate"
Just accept it, and turn to "No Contact"

 

[Fool]

I came to learn today while listening to a Vedanta talk that the style of debate in ancient India went like this...

If you state something, before I can reply, I must restate to you what you said to your satisfaction. “Is this your position on the subject?” If the answer is “yes,” only then can I reply.

Just imagine how many misunderstandings would be prevented if we used that style of debate here at RF...

doesn't matter; if both sides aren't willing to drink from the same cup of human kindness as another poster pointed out. takes two tango

 

[ChristineM]

On RF ?

The number of times i have received replies along the lines of.
"So what you mean is..." and then a total mash up and deliberate misrepresentation of my post because their corrupted version is more suiting to their ego.

 

[MNoBody]

The vast majority of disputes on RF are fundamentally semantic in nature.

One of the most perennial popular ways people on RF fight each other begins with them defining their terms differently. That alone is at least half of all the arguments on this board. What I cannot fathom is how an internet forum populated solely by geniuses can so very frequently fall into arguments that are essentially moronic in nature. It's a mystery.

not really that mysterious
this is a religious forum which shares information and hopes to rationally discuss ideological concepts that people may hold dear, using text symbology to communicate....words....spells....ideas...propaganda
and people get emotionally attached to ideas in the form of words which they feel the need to defend ....no matter what, at times, when it touches on areas where there is corrupted code [wetware] running in the individual, and every human is obviously affected in some manner.

stalin allegedly said that " ideas are dangerous, we ought not let people have them', or something to that effect...to which one could add a thought bubble over his head which reads "unless they are our ideas."

 

[Heyo]

I came to learn today while listening to a Vedanta talk that the style of debate in ancient India went like this...

If you state something, before I can reply, I must restate to you what you said to your satisfaction. “Is this your position on the subject?” If the answer is “yes,” only then can I reply.

Just imagine how many misunderstandings would be prevented if we used that style of debate here at RF...

So, you are saying we should use an ancient, outdated, Hinduistic, religious praxis to avoid misunderstandings in a modern world?

(See what I did there?)