What makes a good debate? - Page 2

Two friends on a verge of becoming enemies 😉 😆 make best debates 😳 Edited by Dabulls23 - 16 years ago

Originally posted by: kabhi_21

A debate needs a healthy discussion with matured talking supported by some facts, unbiased as to religious and cultural values (unless the topic is on that) also unbiased with ur love for food, person or country.... 😊

👏👏

I love the debate part but its hard for me to sit and read pages of one post😕  I do that at school so one or two paras. is enough.😃

a healthy exchange of ideas for and against a particular concept, hypothesis / thought / observation.. done with an OPEN MIND to understand the other POV rather than a set of arguments designed to have the last word..

http://www.halton-forum.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=1975 &pid=33826&mode=threaded&start=

'logical errors people fall into when they believe they are making a point'

Debate is, by its nature, at the heart of politics. But, in the memorable words of Mr. Eric Idle, an argument isn't just saying "No, it isn't" all the time. Here are the major logical errors people fall into when they believe they are making a point. None of these things will result in deleted posts, but for the sake of clarity and your readers, try to be aware of them:

i. Non Sequitur: A statement that does not follow logically from what has just been said; a conclusion that does not follow.

ii. Generalisations: A statment based on unreliable, too little, or biased evidence; extrapolating a general event from an individual event.

iii. Ad hominem: Attacking a person who presents an argument rather than dealing with the argument logically.

iv. Bandwagon: Arguing that if everyone is doing something, it must be OK.

v. Circular reasoning ("begging the question"): An assertion that re-states the point just made, or is included as part of its own proof.

vi. Red Herring: Dodging the real issue by drawing attention to something irrelevant.

vii. Post Hoc, Ergo Procter Hoc: "After this, so because of this", assuming that sequence implies causality.

viii. Either ... or: Stating that only two choices exist when there are more.

ix. False analogy: Assuming that because two things are alike in some ways, they must be alike in other, unconnected, ways.

x. Equivocation: A statement that relies on the mis-reading of a particular sense of a word.Edited by mermaid_QT - 16 years ago

Originally posted by: chatbuster

oh, for starters, you need to have a bakra on the other side. which is why u dont want to make too many friends around here. never know when u'll need a fresh supply of bakras 😉 😆

😕..what if we don't get a bakra😛 but a Lion😊.....

Originally posted by: sareg

Lots of yellow boxes😊, but thread runs pages and pages😛, without getting closed😉, such a flamer that originater of thread has been told to contact [email protected]😭

party poopers are ignored😉

man can dream cant he😆?

I am sure Ravan would love that😉

This is ideal Debate😆😆

Originally posted by: SmarterDesiKid

Hello, I'm back😆😆

so
what makes a good debate?

One that gives you 2-3 options, or one that doesn't give options at all?
Does a debate actually have to make sense, or do we make it make sense ourselves?
Does it need facts, or does it need possible theories?

interesting, I always wondered how to rate a debate!!

I guess, you need a group of stubborn ppl, who will make sure that other in the group agree to them, doesn't matter if their last breath comes in the middle!!!
they have to prove a point, aur apni galti nahian mani kabhi, and have to keep going on and on and on, until the other party quits or agrees or the topic is closed by a dev team member, telling everyone in other words to "get a life"

Edited by Ms. Bholi Bhali - 16 years ago

Originally posted by: Ms. Bholi Bhali

interesting, I always wondered how to rate a debate!!

I guess, you need a group of stubborn ppl, who will make sure that other in the group agree to them, doesn't matter if their last breath comes in the middle!!!
they have to prove a point, aur apni galti nahian mani kabhi, and have to keep going on and on and on, until the other party quits or agrees or the topic is closed by a dev team member, telling everyone in other words to "get a life"

hmmm i feel a debate in forum is like...full of ingredents..

4 stubborn people..3 people who can write lenghty...2 people who write jokes to light the situation...

1 big topic add some religious articles....1 lecture on patriotism(swad anusar) according to taste.. first cut all the religion or region into pieces..wash with sause of citizenship...  mix them well... squeeze a member from every corner..and serve it   and dont forget to add some MOD notes for freshness..😊

take in light way.....

a debate not necessarily make sense ...but it should have pages filled...

as some one said some where...

a debate consist of 3 things

1)my truth

2) your truth

3) real truth

Edited by guess_gallery - 16 years ago

Ofcourse facts are needed to debate on something BUT facts should be facts not opinions made into seem like facts.

SHowing an article (which are mostly opinions) as a "proof" is certainly not a fact, though people seem to believe more on articles than on facts now-a-days for some strange unknown reason

Options help when debating... and when there are no options available there is less debating, more talking, less discussion, more attacking 😉

One last thing: not attacking others or thier beliefs makes a good debate too 😉

[Quote=guess_gallery]hmmm i feel a debate in forum is like...full of ingredents..

4 stubborn people..3 people who can write lenghty...2 people who write jokes to light the situation...

1 big topic add some religious articles....1 lecture on patriotism(swad anusar) according to taste.. first cut all the religion or region into pieces..wash with sause of citizenship... mix them well... squeeze a member from every corner..and serve it   and dont forget to add some MOD notes for freshness..[/QUOTE]

Good one 😆

Let me add one more ingredient: 2 people to analyse the words used in the posts

From Indiadivine, forum - Bhakti List. This is giving an overview of the types of "debates" according to Nyaaya.

Nyaaya is one of six systems of orthodox Indian philosophy, which is mainly known for developing the logical infrastructure used by all the other philosophies.

[quote]
There are actually four types of discussions - samvaada, vaada, jalpa
and vitanDa.
samvaada is the discussion between the teacher and the taught as in
shree krishna-arujuna samvaada. The student does not question the
teacher but questions his understanding for clarification. This type
of discussion can occur only when the student surrenders himself
compleately at the feet of the teacher.

Vaada - is the discussion between two equals - the purpose is to
settle what is the truth. Both come to the table for discussion with
an open mind and the discussion is based on some accepted pramaaNa -
of the authority - for vedanata the pramaaNa-s are specifically the
prasthaanatraya - the Vedas, Bhagavad Geeta and Brahmasuutra. There
are judges to insure the discussion proceeds along the accepted
pramaaNa-s The discussion proceeds until one accepts the other
arguments. Some time the discussions can take days - as in the
famous discussion between Shankara and Mandana Misra which was
supposed to have lasted for 18 days till Mandana Misra accepted
defeat and became Shankara's disciple. Mandana Misra's wife,
Bharati, who was a scholar by herself was supposed to have served as
a judge for that vaada.


Jalpa is where each discussors comes to the table with preconceived
notion that he is right and the other fellow is worng. The other
fellow also comes with the same notion. The purpose of the
discussion is only to conver the other fellow to his camp. There is
no knowledge that takes place in these discussions. Even if one is
loosing his arguments, he only goes and comes back with more
ammunition to defend himself. Only lot of noise. But those who are
bystander can learn the defect in each of their orguments and they
can learn out of these discussions if they do not have nay
preconceived notions. Now a days when I hear any discussions among an
adviatins, vishishhTaadvaitins and dvaitins, I find it mostly as
jalpa than vaada.

Vitanda - is some what peculier. In these discussions one is ready
to take up the other fellows arguments, which he himself does not
believ in, but orgues against the other fellow just to prove that he
is wrong. This is also accepted arguments and is used very
effectively to prove there is no credibility for the opponent. You
are wrong, not becuase the stament by itself is worng but it is wrong
because you made that statement.
[/quote]

 

 Good post Sourav and QT..!!!!

 World history proves that sticky issues are sorted out by war and conflict and not the debate - Kauravs vs Pandavas, Rome vs everybody else  and World wars etc.
You are never going to be able to convince the skeptics but on personal level debating is theraputic. It lets you trace and examine your own arguements and innermost beliefs...which may have been formed in conscience.

 But I enjoy debates that are informative, humorous and sincere.

Edited by lighthouse - 16 years ago