I’m sure we’ve all seen some stunning examples of dishonest debating methods in GD, but tell me honestly folks; when your post in GD (and particularly when you reply to an existing post), do you really keep an open mind, or do you just want to win at any cost.
Have you ever actually changed your mind because someone won you over with reasoned debate?
Honest answers please.
I want to win. But that’s OK; as we almost-lawyers say, vigorous debate is the crucible in which truth is developed.
I don’t think I’ve ever been convinced of anything through an online debate, but my opinions have certainly been informed thereby. I am now a supporter of affirmative action (quite a zealous one, in fact) based primarily on a debate I had with another student when I was in college.
–Cliffy
My nature is to be very competitive. I hate to lose. OTOH I try not to hurt people’s feelings, so I will often “agree to disagree”. But I’ll still be convinced I’m right. (An ex-g/f said I was too competitive, and that’s why she dumped me. My father put it another way: You may be right, but try not to be dead right.)
If someone wins a debate against me about something factual by proving I’m wrong, then I’ll admit I’m wrong and accept my defeat. And try to remember to make sure I have all of the facts the next time.
When it comes to opinions though, it’s usually a case of “agree to disagree”. I think it’s “wrong” to have to show your receipts and purchases when leaving a store. (I just don’t like the implication.) I think it’s “wrong” to infringe on a person’s right to own firearms. (The numbers show that almost all gun owners don’t use their guns to commit crimes.) I think it’s “wrong” to infringe on a person’s right to have an abortion. (A “pro-life” person’s position might be based on religion, which is a personal choice.)
But I’ve changed my mind on capital punishment. Not through debate, but through introspection. I used to think it was acceptable, but I’ve come to believe it’s usually not right. (Usually.)
I don’t spend much time in GD because I’m too much of an intellectual lightweight (not that this is a deterrent to some regulars, apparently). But I try to have an open mind. I’ve had my mind changed about gun control laws, for one thing.
Mostly I think it makes me aware of the difficulties in issues (both sides raising good points, much food for thought).
Hell, I don’t care. This is intellectual interaction. I’m almost on a deserted island and I enjoy trading some ideas as otherwise I’m in kind of a vacume from other Americans.
It irritates me that some people want to win a GD so much. I won’t name names, but there was a GD that said “China violates human rights” and the OP didn’t want to discuss anything. Just threw out some google searches on human rights violations and said I rest my case. No desire or willingness to discuss progress in China, or to put it into context since every country in the world violates human rights.
So, ya, baby, put me down for the truth. Fighting ignorance.
Not to start a debate, but… What is “truth”? For the purposes of fighting ignorance, I think the “truth” is the same as fact. That is, something that can be verified, quantified, etc. When it comes to capital punishment or abortion, “truth” may be more elusive. “Right” and “wrong” are not really quantifiable, but really social constructs.
I agree with “right” and “wrong” being social constructs, but even those have to be backed up by facts, and hence something that is verifiable as truth. I could say capital punishment is wrong because it targets minorities and the poor disproportinately, but then I’d have to provide evidence to back up my statement. Since morals aren’t absolute in the sense that they aren’t imparted to humanity from some outside source, they’re not much of a basis IMO for stating arguments - for instance, opposing the death penalty because “killing is wrong”.
I also question the use of the word “truth.”
What I try to get out of debate is a clearer understanding of what contributes to my holding a certain position, and what factors might cause someone to hold a different position. On other occasions, I may learn that different positions are “right” for different people. Or I try to ferret out possible implications resulting from my position – such as what other positions are consistent or dependent upon a certain belief/understanding.
So my goal is to aquire some insight, not necessarily to convince other people to agree with me.
I often am troubled to find that my asking of direct questions is misinterpreted as challenging, and that my debating/conversational “style” is misinterpreted as being “competitive/aggressive.” I tend to try to “cut through the bull” in a manner some folk find disturbing.
I also believe that peoples’ issue-specific “positions” often reflect some things they personally accept as underlying “truths.” And many folk resist examining or exposing these foundations. Or they feel such inquiry requires a degree of familiarity/intimacy exceeding social conversation.
I tend to offend people by being too open with them too quickly. Which sucks, because being open and honest with someone reflects my (often mistaken) attempt to show respect for them.
I will readily admit that I am wrong if I am convinced. This occurs more frequently, however, on factual issues upon which I was uninformed, or matters of preference which I had not thought through in great depth. On many matters I consider significant, however, I have pondered them sufficiently that it would require extremely substantial “proof” to make me do a 180.
Oh, yeah, as regards the OP. I guess I’d go for winning, but certainly not at the expense of the techniques of honest debate or the truth as demonstrated by verifiable facts. Haven’t been convinced of anything here on the boards, but I have had my mind changed by debates with people I know and associate with IRL.
In fact, I look at it this way…
If we disagree, and you prove me wrong, I am the winner.
That is because I have come away from the exchange having learned something. You are no smarter that when we started.
That is why I could never be a lawyer. I could see it now. “You know what, Your Honor? Now I see the defendants point. It wasn’t his fault, after all. Never mind.”
Sure, truth is hard to pin down when it’s subjective, but sometimes (and see if you can guess what topic I’m thinking of), we seem to be debating about the interpretation of real factual evidence relating to some real and tangible event, in which case, there will definitely be a ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, although that’s not to say that either side of the debate has a complete and true grasp of it.
It matters. What’s the subject matter? Am I debating something I really believe in or am I looking to broaden my knowledge of a subject I only know a little about?
For example:
Race threads. I’m there and I’m arguing my side of the debate to win.
Forgein policy threads. If I’m in there I’m posting questions and asking for clarifications.
I think it’s the nature of the beast. Often the folks in GD are there 'cause they hold such strong opinions and (hopefully) have the info to back it up.
Often, there is no ‘right or wrong’ answer (except of course, for mine 
) because we all weigh the various issues differently (for example the possability of an innocent person being executed weights more for some than it does for others), and also view things differently (there is no definative ‘correct’ answer for ‘when does life begin?’ for example - it depends on your own personal sysystem).
I think we argue not ncessarily to convince the other participants, but for the benefit of those reading.
Personally, I have altered my views on a couple of things over the years, (some slight alterations due to stuff here -oddly enough, tho’, it didn’t occur in a thread on that subject). I have seen folks post “I’m not entirely convinced, but I am quite a bit less certain than I had been” and I take that as a ‘some change occured’ . I’ve also seen some folks admit they were factually incorrect on some piece of data, mostly it doesn’t seem to alter their thesis.
one notably in GD was where some one misremembered an OP/ED piece, arguing their stance from this misremembered info, then when we located the original and it showed that it didn’t remotely say what he’d characterized it as saying, adn even then wasn’t based on any factual piece anyhow, they still held that their original premise was correct. I have the dents in my monitor to prove it.
I post only rarely in GD, since there are some big scary brains in there. They might eat me if I make a mistake.
Other than the intimidation factor, I want to win if I enter an argument. I can’t say that a specific debate has changed my mind 180[sup]0[/sup], but a lot of them have given me a great deal to think about. Even in the debates where I have firmly chosen a side, at the very least I come away with a greater understanding of the opposing point of view.
If I’m corrected on a fact, I have no problem in admitting I was wrong. Hell, my error was a public event, what could I gain from denying it? A lot of my posts are requests for further information, or trying to gain better understanding of the prior poster’s position.
On opinions, I belong more to the “agree to disagree” group. I may not have a factual underpinning to my opinions, but very few of them are lightly held and they aren’t easily shaken. I simply try to respect opposing opinions, assuming they have the same nonfactual/strongly held basis. No point in arguing something like that, other than generating bad feelings.
The truth? You can’t handle the truth!
(Sorry. Someone had to say it. Sorry.)
When I enter a debate, I usually want to win, but I also want to find some greater level of understanding. Being human, I sometimes let the former overshadow the latter, but hopefully my desire for truth wins out most of the time over my desire to win.
I wanna win, with the truth. Failing that, I’ll take truth. Mind you, “truth” is pretty slippery, which doesn’t make it easy.
If someone can present convincing arguments, or provide verifiable evedence that I’m wrong, I will admit so, and alter my POV. It’s not particullary pleasant, but I value “right” over “victory”.
[sub]Stubborn as I am, “convincing” arguments have to be very solid, indeed…[/sub]
My mind can be changed in GD; it’s actually happened within the past few weeks. In that particular case, it became apparent that the facts didn’t support my position, but rather, supported an alternative position.
Certainly, I want to win arguments, but that isn’t the be-all and end-all, which is probably good - it isn’t very often that one side racks up a clear ‘W’ in a GD. (Even by my own biased scorekeeping ;), I’m sure I could probably count two years’ worth of GD ‘wins’ on the fingers of one hand.)
I certainly want to win them within the available facts. But more important, I want to come out of a GD with greater understanding - of the strengths of the other side’s position, of the weaknesses of my own, of just how strong the underlying arguments are on each side.
I don’t know that we’re going to get to ‘truth’ in any of these debates, because I don’t know what truth is. Even though I think I’ve got a sense for where it lies, I’m sure my adversaries in debate believe they do too - and we see the world in different ways. But we can at least get a feel for what the range of plausible arguments is, and that’s not a bad thing in itself.
Also, any argument (excepting those requiring technical professional knowledge, and sometimes not even those) that holds up here, can probably fly just about anywhere. You want to find out how good an argument really is, this is the place to bring it, AFAIAC.
Guess I learned not to toss out subjective words like “truth” in a GD. Gimme a break, it was the middle of the night and I’ve had way too many beers.
I hold these truths to be self-evident:
age 0 to 15…I just wanted to win.
age 16 to 21…I wanted to win, and I was sure I knew the “truth,” and was astonished when others failed to recognize this fact.
age 21 to 30…it’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game. I knew I wasn’t always right, and I knew that the “truth” could be somewhere between your view and my view…or both…or neither.
age 31 to 41…cared little about winning, just wanted some glimpse of the possible spectrum of “truth.”
age 42 to ?…I just want to remain teachable.
Try the Bill O’Reilly patented methods:
Define the terms of the debate before the debate begins
Only your facts are important, other facts are distractions
Interrupt any opposing sentence longer than 7 words
Declare your position the winning position
Attack the credibility of your opponent
Thank them for having the guts to be on your show
Cut off the feed