How to debate effectively?

[forward]

Look like education is the answer to the potential "war" or "flaming" to interesting threads where participants give their views and opinions. We often are more offended with hard working effective moderators closing threads while participants are almost coming to the point of the basics in learning the art of "rational debating".

"...in a debate, we are talking to people who substantially disagree with us and they are likely to put a different interpretation on such words."

"If we don't want to live in a dictatorship, we must be vigilant to preserve our freedoms. If we wish to preserve our freedoms, we must be informed on the issues. Being informed on the issues requires that we become acquainted with alternative points of view. The history of the development of civilization can be seen as the history of debates on issues. In democratic societies, there must be public debating. Newspapers have served this purpose and still do to some extent in this country. However, we seem to have lost awareness of the importance of debating since the days of Thomas Paine. The sixty-second sound bite has created the illusion that the important issues are all brief and cut-and-dried. The importance of debating issues is fading from the public consciousness. One principle aim of The Truth Tree is to increase awareness of the importance of rational debating. But constructive debating is an art. With all this in mind, the following suggestions are offered."

:heart:

 

[Dream Merchant]

Introduction

There is a lot of debate on the net. Unfortunately, much of it is of very low quality. The aim of this document is to explain the basics of logical reasoning, and hopefully improve the overall quality of debate.

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines logic as "the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference." Logic will let you analyze an argument or a piece of reasoning, and work out whether it is likely to be correct or not. You don't need to know logic to argue, of course; but if you know even a little, you'll find it easier to spot invalid arguments.

There are many kinds of logic, such as fuzzy logic and constructive logic; they have different rules, and different strengths and weaknesses. This document discusses simple Boolean logic, because it's commonplace and relatively easy to understand. When people talk about something being "logical," they usually mean the type of logic described here....

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

 

[night86mare]

Look like education is the answer to the potential "war" or "flaming" to interesting threads where participants give their views and opinions. We often are more offended with hard working effective moderators closing threads while participants are almost coming to the point of the basics in learning the art of "rational debating".

"At Cambridge University I was taught a laudable method of argument: you never personalise, but you have absolutely no respect for people’s opinions. You are never rude to the person, but you can be savagely rude about what the person thinks. That seems to me a crucial distinction: people must be protected from discrimination by virtue of their race, but you cannot ring-fence their ideas. The moment you say that any idea system is sacred, whether it’s a religious belief system or a secular ideology, the moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible. " -- Salman Rushdie



words in bold - we see way too many ad hominem attacks here; in the case of online debate in an "open" community it's literally unavoidable. let's just count the number of cases where people end up making fun of the author's looks (when it comes to online blogs) and attacking his/her background, rather than addressing the points being made.

 

[leejay]

Actually there is no need to talk so much in an argument. Why does an argument arise in the first place? Because two parties have different views. Both parties are trying to convince each other that they are right. Well, will there be any winner? Nope, after an argument, most probably there will be some understanding (worse, friendship may get broken), but there will never be a total agreement. I am most amused by long running debating threads that can run for like a whole year through.

At work is different. Arguments are necessary because all are contributing and there is a head who makes the final decision. If the head takes to your point, you win. That's it. Also like in a presidential election, if the public takes to your points, you win. That's where you can be proud of a rational argument.

But in a forum? Argue for what? The last thing is still: I can never accept your point and you can never accept my point. And the best part is 恭喜发财 kena infraction.

 

[renl]

maybe people debate and argue in forums to improve their English, typing speed and assertiveness. ;p

 

[Sion]

maybe people debate and argue in forums to improve their English, typing speed and assertiveness. ;p

Most do it to impress XMMs. :bsmilie:

 

[Wibblo]

Most do it to impress XMMs. :bsmilie:

esp when they travel overseas to countries where the XMMs there are trying to learn English...

been there...done that.....seen it a lot...

 

[sORe-EyEz]

those who are learning may receive some infractions, time-off as tuition fees. these are fine compared to being deregistered. :hung:

i always have a termometer infront of me, when i get too hot. i ownself time-out. :bsmilie: