Debate

How would you define debate. What does the word debate mean?

Following on from a thread about responsible capitalism, a question was raised about the way in which people choose to debate. I have my own thoughts about what I think debating is and wondered what others think. I had a look at the internet and found this definition, amongst others "A debate is, basically, an argument. That is not to say that it is an undisciplined shouting match between parties that passionately believe in a particular point of view. In fact the opposite is true. Debating has strict rules of conduct and quite sophisticated arguing techniques and you will often be in a position where you will have to argue the opposite of what you believe in."

The title should perhaps have read "Debate, what does it - the word - mean to you. But this debate doesn't need to be narrow.

I'm sure there's a different definition/meaning for every one on the planet ...

Well, two opinions from me.

'Debate', to have a discussion, to consider the pros and cons and leave with an opinion.

'A debate', a formal presentation to an audience, with contributions (normally timed) from either side. Usually followed by a time for questions from the audience and a vote.
It's purpose, to persuade others to your view.

The practice of arguing the opposite of what you believe in, is common in order to concentrate on your debating skills rather than the argument itself.

I think I agree with the definition, to me an argument is a presentation of selected facts and ideas to make a case for something, much like a legal case. Unless its science its dosen't have to be provably true but have enough primary evidence and sources to make it a likely scenario.

It does not, however include include insults and attacks against individuals or percieved groups sharing similar views for simply having a a different view to ones own.

Probably the best thing my senior school ever did for me was to introduce me to "Formal Debating" - where a subject would be set and two teams chosen to debate the topic - observing what we referred to as the 'rules of debate' - basically, an orderly discussion.

I say it was the best thing for me but it was probably a nightmare for those in authority as any time there was a 'conflict of opinion' (like: when it was alleged I had done something wrong!) I would invite my accuser to "debate" the matter - it probably got me out of a lot of trouble - until they cottoned on to my modus operandi.




Jason.

"Debate
what is it to you?"

Pointless, for the most part.
At least here on MSE.

I've yet to see anyone change their point of view, and only see sabre rattling, and dick waving contests.
Everyone out to prove themselves right, rather than a proper discussion, or any attempt to see the other point of view.

In my opinon debating online is much more difficult than debating face to face. I agree with Nickolette's descripton of debating and also recognise PEP's observation of all the sabre rattling. Thankfully I haven't noticed the dick waving (I would be curous to know the female equivalent).

I used to take part in debates in which the mentioning of any particular politician or party was banned and no mention of blame was allowed .. this was brilliant. You could take a subject such as unemployment and dicuss the problems and listen to suggestions and new ideas. People were actually discussing remedies.
Most debates (online in particular) seem to end up with arguments about who caused what and which end of the political spectrum your ideals lie.

Bother, I wrote a long reply and it got lost.

To me, debate is about influencing people to adopt your point of view. As you say, it does require a certain level of conduct and not losing your dignity, as often happens on here.

I don't think much debating goes on here. I certainly don't think that much influencing goes on. Often, all I see is both corners becoming more and more entrenched.
As soon as the name calling starts, the other person stops listening and you have lost your audience.

If you really want to influence people, you have to listen first, a concept that some people find hard to grasp. I see some people adopt a somewhat superior and patronising tone and they ain't doing much listening. They seem to think that all they have to do is shout the other person down to win the arguemnt and they seem more hell bent on having the last word. It then descends into a "my dad is bigger than your dad" conversation.

Personally, I don't think that debate has much of a place on a social site, like this one. If I wanted to debate, I would join a debating society.
I do, however, enjoy a good discussion and a respectful exchange of ideas.

Well said Minnie.

Some people on this site have views so entrenched they are never going to listen to someone
else and their points of view.

When in the past these people have been informed that this is the game they are playing, the reply
has always been to carry on shouting the opposer down, not listen to what the person as to say, wether it is right or wrong !

Like you I am all for debate, even lively debate but it tends to degenerate rapidly on this site I'm sad to say.



Chris.

I think to be able to have a debate you have to be able to think around the topic and ask questions of it rather than just saying yes or no and this is why. To give an example of what I mean I will use a zen question; which is stronger the irreststable force or the immovable object? The yes/no and this is why answer would be neither, its immpossible and what a stupid question. Thinking around the question and asking questions of it goes like this; define irresistable, define immovable, what things can you think of that are either irresistable or immovable, can you combine the two in any way, what would a combination look like and how would it manifest? Debating like this can be as much an exploration of the question or topic as finding answers, sometime the reason things seem intractable is because your'e not asking the right question, debate should be as much about defining the question as finding answers to it.

That's all very well Wh, when debating zen questions. However, as has been said already, when we are taught to debate (at school, etc). A random subject is haded down and very often one can be in a team that is debating against one's own opinion on the subject in hand. When I was at school, this happened regularly. They say it is to teach debating skills. There was always two teams or two individuals trying to win an argument one way or the other. Ideas develop through argument, sometimes those arguments can be and are fractious, this is normal... Go to any political "debate" where reps from all sides are in attendance, you will see for yourself. Watch the parliament channel, not just PMQs but that too. Politicians are always digging at each other. I see no difference here, why should there be? We are debating the same/similar subjects, after all.
Just as there, we get people on here who have lots to write but actually say nothing, nothing emerges but rhetoric and diatribe, they make claims that they can't substantiate, they make accusations that they can't substantiate, they change history to suit their own arguments.
Debate isn't about seeing the others points of view it is about supporting one's own opinion with factual information. There will always be a polarisation on emotive subjects, how can it be otherwise...?
People have heard the phrase "the rough and tumble of debate" often enough, I think it says it all really...

Ally

Cambridge Dictionary says ...

"serious discussion of a subject in which many people take part"

Simple and to the point unlike the bloated responses on this thread

That may be so Ally, but why the need for name calling, attempts to belittle, and rudeness? This is by no means aimed only at you, there are others on the left and the right that partake in this rather upsetting method of 'debate'. I like to hear both sides as there are always things to be learned but when the case cannot be presented without resorting to slating others' views, it is very difficult to give credit to what someone is saying - will their information not stand up on its own without slating someone else's views? A comparison between policies, and pointing out weaknesses is great, but I think there will be more credit due if it is done with respect.

Not sure if you have seen any of my previous posts or whether you prefer to ignore what I say? :)

Vicky

having a discussion,on anything,seeing others point of view,and giving mine,and finding common grounds to AGREE

Ally, I have to disagree with you, I'm sure that is how debate is often conducted, but thats not how debate always is or should be conducted. Why should there only be room for a two sided debate or argument and I don't mean mudslingling and name calling when I say argument either. How can one know what the issues are if one does not ask questions of the point under debate? Surely if one is to get away from ill informed diatribe, there has to be room for more than two points of view no matter what facts people can come up with to support thier case, the "other side" will come up with equally compelling facts to support thiers.

If one really wants to make the future better rather than more of the past, then one has to think outside of things as a two horse race. Why is even thinking and asking why we've been conditioned into thinking there can only be two sides to a debate seen to be somehow wrong? Personally I see it as a form of montheism, or political monotheism, there has to be god and the devil, with no overall agreement which is which. Could it be that so much polarisation occurs because we're only allowed two sides of a debate, basically two opinions and that by opening up things up and questioning the questions we see new sides and become less polarised? I think this can be particuarly true when discussing politics and social issues, what we need to look at is people not opposing ideaologies, we need to debate and explore the grey areas because the grey areas are where most of us live. By trying to sort people into dark and light grey and shoving them into one camp or the other, only the opinions of those at either extreme are heard and only thier views get acted upon, in terms of elections this could be why theres so much "voter apathy"

Looking forward to your reply :)

A six letter word worth nine points in the game of Scrabble.

PEP, I sometimes think that debating isn't necessarily about changing another's point of view. I sometimes think it's about exploring the issues. If along the way someone changes their point of view because of a strong and convincing argument. So be it.

One's ego would soar to know that you managed to change someone else's mind. What power!

I enjoy debating as it gets the adrenalin going and you learn things you never knew before, your mind is opened to new things - so exhilarating. It gives you the opportunity to challenge not only others, but yourself.

I think where things go wrong is when something is taken out of context, or taken personally. There's nothing wrong with challenging another's point of view. There is something wrong with posturing and dick waving, as you put it.

How would you define debate. What does the word debate mean?

Isn't it what you use for defishing ?!!?!

Hi Minnie, not much debating goes on here, but some does. What frustrates me is when a debate cannot move on and develop. I guess that's what you get on a site like this one where some people can find it more difficult than others to put their point across.

I think there's room for all sorts of views. This site doesn't dictate what topic can be debated and I think that's a good thing. It's when some people start to attack others rather than the argument, or there's a misunderstanding; it's been said many times on here that you don't have the benefit of vocal inflections, or body language. All you see is the cold, written word. But the way to handle that must be to give the writer the benefit of the doubt. I guess those are some of the rules to debating that can be lacking here sometimes.

Unlike Jason and Ally, I don't recall debating clubs at school. But I do have people I admire who I've seen debate, people like Tony Benn. People who are articulate and can back up what they say.

When I use the word articulate, I mean those who can paint a picture with words - they don't have to be long-winded words, they can be simple, but yet put the point across, whether or not I agree with what they're saying. And passion too, without getting personal, I like that.

A good old argument can be really healthy. It can help to blow the cobwebs away. Know what I mean? In the end though, everybody remains friends - but that's the ideal, I appreciate that.

D-2012, I like it, short and to the point.

" What frustrates me is when a debate cannot move on and develop. I guess that's what you get on a site like this one where some people can find it more difficult than others to put their point across."

You want real ideas debates find Urban75 fora online. The average membership is younger but they are more open to the new and to experimenting with ideas. They can also be very silly but they are generally well informed and good debates over there are fabulous. I haven't been around there for some time now but I used entertain myself no end just reading a lot of the threads. :)

In answer to your point though, and if we're pedantic, then I think what you are really looking for are discussions. It depends on the subject and people's strength of feeling for one premise or another for a conversation to be a discussion or a debate.

So what you're saying mocha is that debate is more fisticuffs and discussion is more erudite and polite? Is that what you mean? Hmm, I don't mind a bit of fisticuffs, now and again. ;-)

I usually put debate on the end of dehook, guess what, it always bites :-)

No point in trying to have a debate on MSE, some people ( including myself ) are so set in their beliefs that they will never change them, but it`s fun, except for the personal insults, but then again it just shows people for what they are doesn`t it :-)