What do you think about debating?

I do not care to debate with anyone who feels that ad hominem attacks are a valid form of debate. Other than that, I'll debate just about anything with anyone.

The only problem that I have with debating is when neither side will recognize the others points. basically at that time you have two people just banging heads with neither one giving ground because each feel they are absolutely correct. I am sometimes guilty of this, but it is usually (to me at least) because I have considered the other opinions and have already discarded them. **I'll agree with daver.. an attack on an person expressing the opinion is not a debate.

I don't like debating so much as presenting a formidable first attack that does not allow retaliation.

This isn't a very useful forum for debate... it's hard to follow the flow of who-said-what-when... so I typically don't bother. Consequently I hide the more active surveys.

I wish people on Survey Central had a forum that was more conducive to debate. But we've gone into that one already...

I think debating often results in hurt feelings and angry people. I've indulged in debating myself at times, but I've been thinking recently that it's bad and not worth it. People should express their feelings, but if someone else challenges them, I think we go down a gnarly path that often results in badness. Also, I think the super long comments that tend to go along with debates on Survey Central can get cumbersome. *** I think "attacks" are subjective, debaters have to attack the other person's assertion - that can be taken personally or not.

I wonder where this survey came from (grin). I have to point out that Debating Should Never Be Personal. This question sort of implies that debating involves personal attacks. "REAL" debates, such as with Toastmasters or other groups, are never personal. You talk about the strengths and weaknesses of different arguments, and concede that the other person is completely valid for holding his/her point of view. I think that is missing from Survey Central. Way too many people get emotional over points of view and have a fit if someone says something different is correct.

Bill: you use the word "attack". Debate doesn't have to be an attack, it can be a clarification of a point of view. You don't have to say "Burger King Sucks" to say "McDonalds has Quality Food". And we have discussed ways of overcoming the cumbersome quality!

I think the debates are an important part of what makes SC interesting. I agree that they should avoid getting personal (we should all try to use some tact), but if someone's feelings get hurt ... so what? (I realize I risk hurting some feelings with that. :) We're all adults, we know what we're getting into here and if we find ourselves getting "hurt" we can Hide and move on!

bill: if your beliefs are worth expressing, they should be worth explicating or defending. I think the problem is that 'discussion' and 'debate' are getting conflated. "debate" doesn't have to mean attack.

Lizzie: you're such a pill!
Lorax: right on!

Hey, Bill! What about "Debate Central"?

I read *intelligent* debates on SC, not "you're a pill!" "no, YOU'RE a pill!" type stuff.

Atzilut: my big ol' white butt? kiss it.

I don't tend to enjoy debating for its own sake, I tend to enjoy it when there's a point to it. I only tend to enjoy debating with people who'll follow similar ground-rules about the debate to the ones that I'll follow. Most people just start arguing; they'll bring up things that have nothing to do with the issue and "facts" with no basis in reality in order to support your arguments. Getting into that is just a waste of time. What I really prefer is just discussion of an idea with someone who's actually interested in exploring the idea; maybe we'll take opposite viewpoints at times, maybe not.

Someone made a comment to me about arguing yesterday 'we don't argue, we discuss' ... I discuss (or debate) facts, but I will argue about passions! The ensuing conversation ended in agreement. *** The debate class I took in school REQUIRED that you be able to defend either side of the debate ... that made the basis factual instead of emotional and removed the "I know you are, but what am I" approach!

I usually find debating frustrating because I think we should be able to find THE ANSWER but it never seems to work that way.

Too often debates turn into flame wars...

I like the kind of debates happening here, partly because of the asynchronicity and limited space. There seems to be very little flammage, mostly just questions, "Have you thought about this?" or "What about this scenario." I actually wish more people would comment, particularly when they have "unpopular" answers (like the people who said slavery is a good idea, or that domestic violence is a private matter), because those are the people whose ideas are sufficiently different from mine to be really interesting. In general, I don't like "debate" per se. I like conversation and I don't feel like I have to agree with my conversational partners in order to enjoy the process, but I dislike any interaction in which the purpose is (or seems to be) to score points against the other person. I don't find an antagonistic mode to be particularly useful in changing people's opinions or exploring the issues of a topic fully.

i used to debate. i don't on a regulah basis anymore. i'm not sure if the comments area makes for real debate, as debates require linearity and sequence. either i'm using SC wrong, or there is no way to make the comment interplay sequential.

I enjoy debating if it's on a topic that I have a strong opinion and/or knowledge on, and if we can debate without personal feelings entering into it too strongly.