Instigator / Pro
7
1488
rating
10
debates
40.0%
won
Topic
#1250

Modern Debate Is Abused

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

logicae
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

So much for "Short Description" XD. I will continue here. This debate, about debate, is not meant to be a win or end up in a smoking pot of #$E# type of debate. It should be more of a conversation, as debate used to be.

We talk about rules on these sites. (they are important for obvious reasons :) I only propose three:
.
1. BOTH sides have a burden to prove their positions. (I have noticed this kind of burden swinging in far too many debates. It is a tactic to merely win a debate, not to find truth.)

2. Sources are NOT everything. (Something that is also misunderstood is the nature of facts. Facts are NOT automatic guarantees that what you say is true. Facts can be: 1. Wrong 2. Misinterpreted 3. Misapplied to your argument. Lastly you can have a fallacious argument, which is one consisting of logical fallacies, such as contradictions, and are unable to be defended by mere facts)

3. Basic etiquette. (No character/ad hominum attacks,... etc)

Now I made three rounds for this debate. I am hoping to debate based on common understanding and evidence based on popular beliefs/debates (the presidential debates for example). I would also like that we keep this debate within the context of the U.S, but if you have been dying to defend debate in North Korea...well go ahead.

Please do not pick up this debate if you are simply trying to debate as many of these as possible. The end goal is truth, not biting someone's tooth. (not "winning")

To Truth!

-logicae

logicae is like the ultra anti-nihilist

Sorry about the dropped first round RationalMadman! I was absent and should have posted sooner.

To Truth!

-logicae

@Ragnar

Hello,

I can certainly see why you would use debate as a type of peer review, but is that all it has been diluted to? Everyone seems to ascribe to this new notion of "polarization" where one's ideas becomes a part of them and attacking those ideas is similar to an attack on the person.

I think we can agree debate was meant for something more, at least a way to find light in a controversial matter.

Regardless though,

To Truth!

-logicae

-->
@LordLuke
@logicae

I'm going to second what Luke said.

I tend to use debate when the difference of opinion is polarizing. It further serves as a type of peer-review, to find faults with strongly held notions.

@LordLuke

Hello,

What do you mean?

-logicae

-->
@logicae

Isn't that what forum could be for, anyway?

@omar2345

Hello old friend! Yes I am.

To Truth!

-logicae

-->
@logicae

Are you from DDO?