The Site > Site Suggestions & Support
What's the difference between discussion and debate?
the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh:
--- Quote from: Priscellie on February 07, 2007, 06:20:08 PM ---I tip my hat to you, Ashton! And now I'm really craving hummus...
--- End quote ---
Just so long as it does not become a requirement to drool over combining the concepts of "hummus" and "Angelina Jolie", because I'm very much on the "two great tastes that taste better separately" position there.
In theory. Not having met Ms. Jolie, and meaning her no disrespect either way.
the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh:
Difference between discussion and debate really seems to be in the eye of the beholder, and I'd prefer not to have lines laid down that curtailed the civilised expression of differences of opinion when they arose naturally out of conversation. The vast majority of what I've seen since joining in the conversation here as struck me as eminently civilised, and I would worry somewhat that being self-conscious about an additional distinction might make it hard to have conversations flow as naturally and appealingly as they often do.
I wonder whether part of the problem might not be something I've seen recur in other online fora in different places, which is people from different areas or brought up in different cultures within the English-speaking world having distinctly different basic notions of what is and is not civil conversation, or hearing things with subtext differently from what was meant in them - I've personally lived in five different countries for significant lengths of time as an adult, and had a number of such issues come up, for example "If you say so", which seems to read very dismissively some places in NorAm, whereas in my home part of Ireland it's a neutral or mildly complimentary way of acknowledging that somebody probably knows better and you don't have the information to judge.
I have withdrawn from a couple of threads recently where continued argument appeared to be generating more heat than light. As a suggestion for how to counter this, what would people think of the notion that, when a book-related discussion appears to be getting heated, the participants be requested to [ or ideally undertake of their own responsibility ] construct whatever position they are suggesting in a more formal manner, identifying what of their particular argument is actually stated in the text of the books in so many words, and what is a deduction from there and by what logic ? I suggest this because a number of the more heated threads recently appear to hinge on people having different perceptions on what can be regarded as "fact" within the Dresdenverse.
bobtheskull:
--- Quote from: neurovore ---Difference between discussion and debate really seems to be in the eye of the beholder, and I'd prefer not to have lines laid down that curtailed the civilised expression of differences of opinion when they arose naturally out of conversation.
--- End quote ---
Maybe it is in the eye of the beholder and maybe it isn't. Maybe there is actually a line one can cross from discussion to debate though. The ones that cross that line are perhaps less likely to be able to define that line however.
It's a common theme in fiction and literature that the ones who crossed a line of some kind no longer really see that line being there. The dirty cop, for example, that thinks he's still a good cop, even if he's taking a little dirty money every week.
I'm not saying debaters are dirty, just that they crossed a line from discussion into debate.
The real difference between discussion and debate to me seems clear right now. Discussion is when you are interested in the ideas of the group. Debate is when you are more interested in proving your own point, sometimes to the extent of intellectual dishonesty either through concious intent or not. Sometimes, in debating thread, it's too convenient to make a vague all-or-nothing statement that somehow proves another poster as wrong.
If there's a risk of using a fallacious argument (straw man, ad hominem attack, etc), then chances are it's a debate.
I'm not asking to limit this board away from debate. I think there are valid reasons to debate things. I just don't want the risk of getting sucked into a debate on every post I make.
Perhaps that means I shall just have to get good at ignoring people who insist on it. If it were ONLY me, I would. Unfortunately, I've seen other people here and people on other boards get pounded on by people who are interested primarily in practicing their debating skills, and end up just either going away angry or deciding to only lurk.
It's kind of a problem on all boards.
DragonFire:
--- Quote from: bobtheskull on February 08, 2007, 05:12:26 AM ---
--- Quote from: neurovore ---Difference between discussion and debate really seems to be in the eye of the beholder, and I'd prefer not to have lines laid down that curtailed the civilised expression of differences of opinion when they arose naturally out of conversation.
--- End quote ---
Maybe it is in the eye of the beholder and maybe it isn't. Maybe there is actually a line one can cross from discussion to debate though. The ones that cross that line are perhaps less likely to be able to define that line however.
It's a common theme in fiction and literature that the ones who crossed a line of some kind no longer really see that line being there. The dirty cop, for example, that thinks he's still a good cop, even if he's taking a little dirty money every week.
I'm not saying debaters are dirty, just that they crossed a line from discussion into debate.
The real difference between discussion and debate to me seems clear right now. Discussion is when you are interested in the ideas of the group. Debate is when you are more interested in proving your own point, sometimes to the extent of intellectual dishonesty either through concious intent or not. Sometimes, in debating thread, it's too convenient to make a vague all-or-nothing statement that somehow proves another poster as wrong.
If there's a risk of using a fallacious argument (straw man, ad hominem attack, etc), then chances are it's a debate.
I'm not asking to limit this board away from debate. I think there are valid reasons to debate things. I just don't want the risk of getting sucked into a debate on every post I make.
Perhaps that means I shall just have to get good at ignoring people who insist on it. If it were ONLY me, I would. Unfortunately, I've seen other people here and people on other boards get pounded on by people who are interested primarily in practicing their debating skills, and end up just either going away angry or deciding to only lurk.
It's kind of a problem on all boards.
--- End quote ---
bobtheskull.
It's obvious you think very little of debating. I say this because your definition portrays a selfish person, here to cause trouble or swing their intellect around.
Using our little case as an example, I was discussing, not debating, by your logic.
I was interested in your idea, I saw several flaws in it, and I attempted to discuss with you, those flaws.
You, however, using your definition, were debating.
you were agreesively trying to prove your own point, and you certainly weren't interested in others ideas, at least in your dialog with me.
Moreover, in our little conversation, I was interested in the ideas of the group, you were hardly the first person I responded to on the thread.
Do you see what I mean about it being murky?
My worry is that we end up with 100 different people with 100 different definitions of 'discussion' all flaming, fighting and complaining to the mods that there is debate on a dicussion thread and vice versa.
When we post, when we put an idea up for discussion, we take the 'risk' of debate, of having to shore up, or admit to weaknesses in our ideas/theories.
It's a part of being on a board like this.
Antimatter Girl:
Oy. It's good I haven't been cruising the boards as much lately, if things are getting vicious enough to warrant this kind of thread ;)
How about this for a policy?
If things are getting heated, the mods tell the folks who are fighting to back away and cool off so that they can debate later, drop it, or take it into PMs. Maybe the mods could take a crack at mediation (like having someone summarize the other person's arguments) if they think it's necessary. Then, if the parties won't knock it off and play nice, the mods get to use their wonderful mod tools to slap the fighters or close the topic. I would recommend getting more volunteer mods if this kind of thing would be too much for the current staff, but other than the nerd!fury in TV land, I don't think there's been too much beyond the normal debate/discussion posturing.
I think most of us here are polite enough to know when enough is enough and follow something like that. But making a whole new class of thread or board seems like an extreme measure for what should be a matter of common sense and decency.
The nerd fury will die down eventually :P
Remember, just be polite and actually try to understand (read: open yourself up to the possibility of being convinced) where the other guy is coming from.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version