|
| Thread: the argument |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted February 18, 2010 08:41 PM |
|
|
Yes, it is (sorry).
A discussion is what you see in TV when "experts" and "laymen" (VIPS)are in an infotainment talk-show and discuss. The experts give one or another serious information, the VIPs opine, discussions are mostly friendly, there is the odd joke. Everyone is calm. There may be contradictions, and it may become lively, but people may try to find a compromise, find what they have in common
A debate is what you see when Obama meets McCain.
Or when supporters of pro choice debate with church officials.
There is something on the line and the aim is to CONVINCE no matter what. Compromise would be a very rare exception.
If you read bixies initial post again, you'll see that the prof he quotes is talking about "debates in which he played devil's advocate stating and defending opinions he abhors.
Which is what a "debate" is all about: presenting a position with the aim to CONVINCE - or win.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2010 02:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
A debate is something different. It's more like a COMPETITION of ideas or opinions with a specific aim: to find out what is "better suited" (for whatever purpose).
could be yes.but the way you say it, the aim isn't to beat the other, but to find the best idea. you may realize that other people have better ideas
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2010 07:15 AM |
|
|
*sigh*
Fauch, ask your teacher what a debate is and what the aim of a debate is.
In a debate the aim is to get as much agreement from the "bystanders", that is, the non-debaters, as possible. This is another difference to a discussion. A discussion needs no audience, only the discussing people, and they discuss for themselves.
With a debate this is different. There are two (but in theory any number) of "positions" who will make a case of their position. The aim here is NO agreement, nor finding the best course, but "pulling the audience (the undecided public) to their position".
If there is a debate of the death penalty, for example, you will have a pro side and a con side, both sides will present their point of view and both sides hope, that after the debate more people will agree with their point of view.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2010 07:20 AM |
|
|
Well, then, most of the posts here are both discussions and debates, because we try to convince the other person of the rightness of our view, and influence whatever readers there may be.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2010 08:00 AM |
|
|
Yes, I agree.
Usually most people do both, with simple mechanisms at work.
consider two people, agreeing in PRINCIPLE, but talking about some details and finer points - example: two people agree about, yes, there should be a death penalty for certain crimes; they have some differences about what crimes, though. In this case they will DISCUSS (not debate) the finer points - there is a general willingness to compromise in detail, since there is general agreement. That is, having general agreement at hand, everyone is willing to have an open mind, learn something new (within "safe" limits) and so on.
However, if two people are in general disagreement - yes, death penalty, no, never ever - there basically is no compromise possible or it's at least difficult to find and it would involve a major reassessment of known information. So there is disagreement on a fundamental level, and if people have a halfway FOUNDED opinion (and not just repeat something they find cool, have heard somewhere or just want to say something), they will defend their view and attack the other, DEBATING the issue. This isn't bad as such - an opinion should stand the test of debating, of course.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted February 19, 2010 10:23 AM |
|
|
@JJ
Summary: I think neither of our views can be excluded given the information that is the text which bixie posted. So it is not to say you can't be right in this matter, you very well could. However I find my view more probable because that does include the purpose of teaching. Therefore I find it better justified.
_____________________________________________________________________
I'd say the person who uses the terms from which the line of talk goes, is also the person to define the term.
In this case the term is defined by the very first post, who people reply to. I hope you agree with this, otherwise it'd be really hard to communicate, ever. That would mean the professor in the post by bixie.
An example of such a problem would be, given I used the term information without defining it and Fauch rejected the suggestion. I am not going to define the term information, as that would take up too much space, but it does include stuff like ideas and points. Which thereby basicly says the same as he is.
Your suggestion of a debate being a battle may very well be correct, as I don't see anything that excludes this possibility. However I do find it more likely that the term debate is used another way than what you suggest.
I think we both understand the term, the devil's advocate, as someone who takes an opposite stand of a given information than what this person believes is true.
What is important to note in what I wrote is the justification part. In any talk, when you want to share an information, you need to justify the information to an acceptable level of the person you talk to.
I would imagine that what is logic to one, may not be so to another and it really depends on the imagination.
So when a student comes with an information the professor agrees with, but the logic does not seem valid enough to justify it, then I think the professor will want to learn the student to better justify that information.
A way of doing this, is to take the opposite stand, telling why the given argument is not valid justification, at which the student then gets something to think about.
Of course it may very well be the professor whose imagination is too limited to see there's no logical flaw. Which would mean what is required is a lower level of explanation from the student, going more into the detail. Maybe the student will think so, tries to do that, but the professor think he's the smarter one and realises that he has failed in using logic on the proper level of understanding of the student.
That is, something that is really important when sharing information is justifying at a level the person you talk to can understand.
I do too often see teachers who thinks it is a good idea to talk at a level no one can understand, because then the students will be impressed. Yes they often will be impressed, but that is not the purpose of the talk, the purpose is to teach.
Assuming the teacher is correct in the example above, then if the teacher, after showing the student why his justification is not valid, does not help the student justify the information that the teacher agrees upon, then the teacher have acted wrong in my opinion.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2010 11:12 AM |
|
|
The terms ARE defined - you cannot go ahead and redefine the terms just because you don't like the definitions.
The fact that in a debate someone may play devil's advocate is because from a purely technical point of view debating is an art, and it's an art that is taught in certain classes. Logic and rhetoric plays a role, presentation as well. The point is, that the actual CONTENT is formally and technically IRRELEVANT. You make several assumptions here that simply are not valid.
For example, no matter WHAT you debate, as soon as you debate the merits of something that will cost money to install, you can IMMEDIATELY put forward the point that the project costs too much compared with what it safely is supposed to gain. This point is always valid, because "too much" is open to interpretation and would justify the question what "too much" means, why, how and so on - it hasn't got to do anything with logic.
The thing is, that you can now make points, that have nothing to do with the issue, all technical and formal: for example you might say:
a) another project has already been declined for that reason and it was high time to do one now, lest the whole issue would become endangered; so it has to be done.
b) you have to decline this project, because another similar one has been cancelled as well, which creates a precedence.
The CONTENT is irrelevant. You can make the same points, if the question is, should we execute this perpetrator.
a) We executes the last one, so we might be mercyful this time, so to not create a precedence we might stumble upon later
b) We executed the last one, so we should follow through with this one as well because a precedence has been created.
See that? That's why a prof CAN easily debate against his or her own beliefs - it has to do with technique, formality, style and so on. Which is, why a debate is a battle, there are moves and counter-moves, just as in a chess game.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The error on your part is to assume there would be something like an objectively best possible way and a debate had the purpose to find it.
With most questions, though, there simply is no objectively best possible way. Even if the results of two different courses of actions ARE 100% clear and fixed - which they are not -, in most cases you STILL are not able to determine a best way, because there is no such thing - there is always an alternative.
Let's have an extreme example: There is a possible cure for Cancer, however the cure - a virus strain - poses the danger, once used, that it mutates and may killing some vague percentage of infected, with the rest developing an immunity. Even if you would KNOW that it WOULD mutate with a 100% probability to something deadly for a percentage between 0.1 and 10%, you CAN make a point for both using or not using it, because it's solely a question of what standards you use to determine "best result." (That is, you start debating the standards at some point, not the issue anymore.)
Which is even logioal - if there WAS a best way, presentation (or impression, going back to what the prof says) wouldn't matter, because it was all a question of seeing the logic, reviewing the information, add 2 and 2 and so on.
So what the guy is saying is, no matter how good an argument is, it is never so good that it can't be annihilated by unfavorable behavior of the one presenting it.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2010 02:27 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 19:25, 19 Feb 2010.
|
according to my dictionnary, a debate is like a discussion
Quote:
However, if two people are in general disagreement - yes, death penalty, no, never ever - there basically is no compromise possible or it's at least difficult to find and it would involve a major reassessment of known information.
maybe it's not so hard.
why do you want the death penalty? because it will ensure he never does it again
why don't you want the death penalty? because it is bad to kill.
how can you prevent a murderer (for example) to not kill again without killing him? we have prisons. and there are probably many other ways.
of course, it could be harder than that :
why do you want death penalty? so that the society takes revenge / to punish him.
why don't you want it? same reason than above
then it's harder because in the 1st case the idea of both people was to protect one or several individuals. here, one wants to protect, the other one wants to harm. but if we follow morality, obviously one of them will have to lose or change his mind.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2010 02:52 PM |
|
|
I think, that your assessment is very superficial. It's not NEARLY as easy or clearcut as that.
For your statement, that your dictionary says that a debate is a discussion you may want to have a look
here
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2010 07:25 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 19:28, 19 Feb 2010.
|
Quote:
I think, that your assessment is very superficial. It's not NEARLY as easy or clearcut as that.
of course it isn't, because most people are unable to communicate properly (maybe I'm bad too)
if they could communicate perfectly, it would be much easier to find a solution to most problems.
you said what is the problem yourself, people have a problem over which they disagree, so they discuss to find a solution. but then they get upset when other people start criticizing their ideas, so their egos take the control, the goal becomes to beat the other so that you keep your dignity and the debate stop being constructive.
and by the way, do you know what makes things "complicated" or even "impossible"? the fact people think they are. even if it is not true. if you convince yourself that something (even extremly simple) is impossible, then it will be impossible to you.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2010 08:35 PM |
|
|
Ok, Fauch, let's make an experiment.
Name a position you are pretty sure of... no, wait, I already know one.
So: Give good reason why people should try to compromise when having a vastly different opinion, instead of try to press home the opinion they are convinced is right, especially if a compromise is not easily possible because it's something like a yes-no question?
(For example: should a government negotiate with terrorists? death penalty? Abortion? Cloning? Nuclear power plants?....)
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2010 01:19 AM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 01:23, 20 Feb 2010.
|
well, terrorists don't blow up stuffs and kill people only for the sake of blowing up stuffs and killing people.
actually, the debate shouldn't be about :
"are you against such thing?" which implies a yes/no answer
but "why are you against / for such thing?" which will allow people to really discuss.
Quote:
should a government negotiate with terrorists?
indeed there aren't many possible answers, apart from yes, no, maybe...
but if you say "why should a government negotiate with terrorists?" there is an infinite number of possible answers.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2010 09:42 AM |
|
|
Fauch, you need to focus on READING A POST CORRECTLY.
If you go over my last post, the question isn't if governments should negotiates with terrorists.
The question is: Why do you think, that people with very different opinions on an issue should try to reach a (probably impossible) compromise instead of try to push their own opinion through (which they, after all, convinced about)?
So, AS AN EXAMPLE, if you have the no-negations-with-terrorists faction and the depends-on-the-situation faction FOR EXAMPLE - why should these factions try to reach a "compromise" (the problem being among others that there doesn't seem to be a valid one) instead of trying to push through what they think is best?
You could take any other issue as well - you caan even take a tax issue or something, where compromises at least SEEM valid (I mean, if one side wants a vat tax increase of 5% and another don't want an increase a compromise might be any figure beteen 0% and 5%, however, both have good reason for wanting the 5 or the 0).
But don't forget the actual question, Fauch: Why compromise?
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2010 02:22 PM |
|
|
let's see, it's like asking, why should we allow democracy when we can force dictatorship?
let's see how I could argue that...
after all, it's so much easier to force the other to agree to your view. you don't even need to argue after all, you could just use a gun and your opponent will "spontaneously" accept that your idea is far better. unless maybe if he has a bigger gun than yours.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2010 05:31 PM |
|
|
I take it that means you haven't got the slightest clue, but somehow it seems right?
Or what am I to make of that? You are not even answering the question, are you?
You try to bring in a comparison democracy/dictatorship; you bring in polemics, talking about how much easier it is to force people with a gun to follow an opinion...
But you cannot even give ONE reason.
Don't you find that a bit strange?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 20, 2010 07:10 PM |
|
|
He did. You are basically arguing/debating with him about it, but in dictatorships, you cannot do that (argue/debate).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2010 07:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The question is: Why do you think, that people with very different opinions on an issue should try to reach a (probably impossible) compromise instead of try to push their own opinion through (which they, after all, convinced about)?
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 21, 2010 04:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
try to reach a (probably impossible) compromise
==> democracy
Quote:
try to push their own opinion through
==> dictatorship
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 21, 2010 09:16 AM |
|
|
Excuse me, Fauch, but if you think that Democracy is trying to reach a compromise, then why is democracy called the dictatorship of the majority?
Moreover, the two are two completely different things. Debate is something DEMOCRACY uses to bring in votes for the opinion.
Last time I checked, Democracy did not involve everyone trying to reach a compromise, on the contrary. Political parties are COMPETING for votes, and that involves declaring opinions and programs of other parties wrong and even dangerous. Compromise is aan option only, if there is no other way possible.
Dictatorship on the other hand is NEITHER compromise NOR trying to push things through - it's pushing things true with the power of police, army, and so on - it's not competing for agreement.
Competing for agreement - trying to push things through - is, what everyone does, when they think they are right.
So, no, Fauch. That's not it.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 21, 2010 03:04 PM |
|
|
but trying to force people to agree to your idea implies the use of violence (including verbal and mental violence)
your idea may win in the end, but your opponent will be unsatisfied and it may become the root of another problem.
|
| |
|
|
