• 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!

What Makes a Good Debate?

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
You'll notice this thread is, perhaps ironically, in a discussion section. So no debating about debate, please. ;):p

What are the features of a good debate? I intentionally use the word "good" here, knowing it means different things to different people. Perhaps a good debate, in your mind, is a productive one, one you are glad you engaged in (or watched/heard), one you learned something from, one you felt was a worthwhile use of your time, or some other positive attribute. I leave it to you to explain how you understand the term in context of this conversation.

What are the elements or features of such a debate?

A debate that covers the when, where, and hows tend to be the most useful and practical.

Other debates are more geared for entertainment than anything else. Like many of the smackdowns here.

Both are fine imo depending on the mood.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
A good debate for me is one where cogent points are made and each party responds to them, in full, with either cogency in kind or admittance of their inability to return the volley, regardless what else is going on.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
  • Making your arguments with supporting facts or strong reasons
  • Reading (or listening to) your opponents arguments -- and answering them directly
  • Acknowledging a good argument, when its made
  • Staying on topic
  • Obeying debate rules, if there are any
  • Emotions are okay, if you can be respectful
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Something else after reading others' replies. Debates also should lend both parties patience and interest to research and read each other's comments. So, for example, if I was having a good debate with a christian, I should take the interest and time to read the scriptures even if it's a wall of text, as to see what they mean in a given claim or opinion. The debate interest should be reciprocal in nature. So if the other side or the person talking does not wish to be challenged or asked questions, there's no use of debate.

Another is short handed comments. i.e. "Okay" . "I see". "I disagree." In a discussion and/or debate, short-cut sentences do not say anything. It may make the other person feel they are not listened to. That or maybe they have aversion from the other party and conversation is lopsided because one side wishes to discuss and the other side may be just replying or "liking" for rather than a genuine reply and like. A reply of cordiality rather than sincere wish of interest and reflection. If there are feelings about someone on one side or the other and that person does not wish to debate, saying one-sided comments is worse than just saying nothing at all.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
This is going to sound really obvious coming from me, I am sure - but I just don't see the point in a debate remaining entirely respectful/cordial/peaceful - with respect to the language used of course - I am not talking about coming to blows, which elevates the situation beyond mere "debate" anyway.

In the end, if someone has the goods, argumentatively, I don't think it much matters what else they have said or how they said it. Christopher Hitchens is a great example. He had the goods with his argumentation, and yet he cleverly tore people apart at the seams, derogatorily, all the time. And not just insinuation, mind you. Never once did I feel his lack of respect detracted from the points he was making. Those points either stand on their own or they don't.

And that's also why I can't help but see cowardice in anyone who begs off of answering a difficult point with something like "Well, if you're not going to be civil, then there is no reason to bother responding to you." I see it as their chance to take the easy way out, and not compromise their side of the debate by actually responding to the point made (or question asked) truthfully. If someone is being derogatory to me, there's no reason I can think of to shy away, or bow out, or tell them they don't deserve my time. From my perspective, it's all the more reason to come at them head-long.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
This is going to sound really obvious coming from me, I am sure - but I just don't see the point in a debate remaining entirely respectful/cordial/peaceful - with respect to the language used of course - I am not talking about coming to blows, which elevates the situation beyond mere "debate" anyway.

In the end, if someone has the goods, argumentatively, I don't think it much matters what else they have said or how they said it. Christopher Hitchens is a great example. He had the goods with his argumentation, and yet he cleverly tore people apart at the seams, derogatorily, all the time. And not just insinuation, mind you. Never once did I feel his lack of respect detracted from the points he was making. Those points either stand on their own or they don't.

And that's also why I can't help but see cowardice in anyone who begs off of answering a difficult point with something like "Well, if you're not going to be civil, then there is no reason to bother responding to you." I see it as their chance to take the easy way out, and not compromise their side of the debate by actually responding to the point made (or question asked) truthfully. If someone is being derogatory to me, there's no reason I can think of to shy away, or bow out, or tell them they don't deserve my time. From my perspective, it's all the more reason to come at them head-long.
In large, I agree with what you've written. However, I think we need to understand what we mean when we say "be respectful." That does not mean that I have to respect what you say, or what you believe. Certainly not -- if I think that you are wrong, it is entirely within my right in a debate to say: "that is totally incorrect, and here's why." But notice that what I don't have the right, and no need, to do is say, "and you're stupid to think so."
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Never once did I feel his lack of respect detracted from the points he was making. Those points either stand on their own or they don't.
He didn't have to conform to the rules & spirit of RF though.
We're supposed to.
And that's also why I can't help but see cowardice in anyone who begs off of answering a difficult point with something like "Well, if you're not going to be civil, then there is no reason to bother responding to you."
It could be the coward's way out.
But another reason is to not reward bad behavior with
addressing their point. To encourage them is wrong.
 
Top