Modern Debate Is Abused
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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
log=PRO Rm=CON To profess, I agree with con, although it's not a topic I'm very interested. I don't believe I was biased in my voting.
Log states how the purpose of debate has been changed from the pursuit of truth, to winning to achieve support or power. RM fails to truly address this, he states what debate is in his eyes "to outwit, outcharm and outmaneuver the opponent via logic, emotional appeal and anything to get the votes that doesn't break the rules." in RM's words. This doesn't disprove how MODERN DEBATE has been abused.
RM states"the focus here is on what is being abused not that abuse is happening. It is not debating itself that's being abused rather my opponent has a romantic view of debating and then is shocked that it's so harsh and corrupt in reality." This does fail to address the debate, Log states how modern debate leads away from the pursuit of truth, you can lead away from the pursuit of truth by attacking your opponent, if modern debate encourages attacking your opponent then you can still claim modern debate is abused. Log states how the act of dodging truth in the pursuit of victory is abusive.
Log does make a mistake however by denying RMs definition of debating without offering an alternative definition, he state how it's too limited, so offer a more broad definition.
Log states that modern debate is seen in political debates, and abused there.
Overall RM doesn't prove that modern debate isn't abused well enough, his R3 response is a misrepresentation of Log's point, it's clear when log states truth is abused he means were putting truth aside for victory, in other words RM's largest point, that it's not the debate being abused but the opponent doesn't hold up.
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
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
Isn't that what forum could be for, anyway?
@omar2345
Hello old friend! Yes I am.
To Truth!
-logicae
Are you from DDO?