Actually this is interesting, and until it deteriorated into another thread it was good.
It is interesting that the fact of not conceding defeat at failure to win the debate is brought up. To demand this from autz is implicitly saying that debate is a way to prove a point.
Personally I disagree, I wish that it was so, because if it would be the world would be a much better place considering that the ‘correct’ viewpoint must always win… or?
Nah… that doesn’t work!
Debate is about exposing the strengths and weaknesses of opposing arguments on a given issue, it is a war of semantics, logic, rhetoric and ideas. There is no definite ‘winner’ on either side of the warring parties, everyone loses as much if not more than they invest in the battle.
‘So it is useless’ one might deduce from my argument.
There are winners. The winners in a debate are the participants and the bystanders that walk away with a broader view, with a better-founded set of beliefs and with arguments to back them up.
The successful winners are those who adopt their mindset accordingly.
Debate is not just a social game, it is part of the very essence of being human, it is at the core of evolving mentally and socially faster than every other species known to us. Debate is about being civilized, and maybe therefore rhetoric was also one of the first human arts to come to completion.
What we say out loud might change somebody’s mind. If we say it well enough and with good ground it might make the world a better place. If we partake in debate and thereby expand our views we might become better human beings.
I don’t know which is more honorable, but I am humbled both by the fact of giving mine and receiving all of yours opinions.
Humbly and respectfully