I too have had my mind changed as the result of some good debates on the SDMB. On some of the more emotional topics (abortion and gun control come to mind) I’ve had my horizons expanded and gained a deeper understanding of why people believe what they believe.
I think the key to a great debate is a well-reasoned and thought out OP. This allows others to take the poster’s position seriously enough to put the effort into an intelligent debate. If an OP is overly emotional or denegrates the opposing position it only invites emotional, denegrating responses.
When one recognizes that their response will be emotional and not necessarily on topic, they should take it to the Pit, IMHO.
I was chiding you for making an assumption about Autz’s reason for opening this thread.
Perhaps she does want to explore your particular reasons from the previous thread, but it is an assumption to decide that without any discussion with her. Much the same as the tactic you objected to in your post prior to mine.
When you accuse someone of “playing a card” you are stating the judgment that their motives are insincere, and their point of view is pretended, for game purposes. If you do it without strong evidence, it seems entirely likely that you are playing a game of your own.
Clearly, the purpose of debate is to flatten one’s opponent’s forehead.
While not providing measurable numbers, the column next to (number of) Replies provides a count of the (number of) Views. For any intense topic where the number of views is more than 10 times the number of replies, it is very likely that some significant number of those views are by people who are not committed to the issue (or, at least, are not committed to voicing an opinion).
Actually, no one is continuing to debate the breastfeeding issue, here. If you will note, the people referring to that thread are using that thread as an example of how a debate might procede. Since it was an early thread/debate in your career at the SDMB, they are drawing your attention to aspects of that thread that will illuminate the discussion in this thread by providing concrete examples, with which you are familiar, of the points they are making.
I used to debate a friend of my brother’s every now and again. We usually talked about politics, which was fun, since he was all the way to the left and I am almost all the way to the right.
After a few debates with him, I got to thinking that it simply wasn’t any fun to debate with him because I was able to change his mind too quickly. He would tell me his theory on this, that, or the other, and I would subsequentially destroy it, and he would say, “Okay, I now agree with you.”
That being said, I think that debates have several uses:
1.) First and foremost for fun. If it stops being fun, drop the debate.
2.) To change the other person’s point of view. If you can’t do that…
3.) Strengthen your own point of view. When you hear the other side, it can help reaffirm why you believe what you believe.
Granted, I was making an assumption, although not entirely without evidence, as I presented in my subsequent post. And I was not playing a game. I was just annoyed at what I perceived to be a disingenuous OP. I could also be wrong.
However, as I’ve already admitted, I probably should have posted my suspicions elsewhere (the Pit thread, or the other GD thread), and given this thread the benefit of the doubt. Or at least given autz some more time to flesh out her reasons for starting this thread.
So, chiding accepted. Mea culpa, and my apologies to autz and to the participants and readers of the Straight Dope Message Board Great Debates Forum.
I always thought that a debate was supposed to be an exercise in the art of persuasion. Like back in high school, we had debates where the teacher would assign a position to you and you had to argue that position, whether you believed it or not. So you aren’t necessarily doing it to change anyone’s mind, but just to practice your reasoning skills (and maybe have fun in the process).
I was thinking about starting a thread: “What is the purpose of debating the purpose of debating?” but I’m afraid we would become trapped in an infinite self-referencing loop.
Geeze, Ferrous, you could have whined a little bit!
When you play that old “Ok, I’m sorry” card there’s no where to go afterwards!
Debate in public, between strangers, in front of strangers, with free for all rules about entering and leaving the fray is a whole world apart from debate in the classic academic sense. You really have to hold yourself to the highest standards, even though there is very little chance that the rest of the world will do the same. The pay back comes months later when you notice that your points get answered more often, and every now and then someone actually tells you up front that “Gee, I hadn’t ever looked at that aspect. I am going to have to think about that.”
For me, that is the reason for it all. I read more than I post, and it often brings up matters that I have never considered before. Does it change my opinions? Yeah, it does. Am I likely to join the Republican Party, or start attending Walpurgistnacht? No. But I do become a better educated, and more open minded person, by putting my opinions up in front of an adversarial audience, and examining the results.
Autz, a debate can be a number of things, but I see it as an exercise in persuasion techniques. It is definitely an art (and I’m not too good at it usually…even if I’m right!) There are some things that I would never attempt to debate, especially on the SDMB, because I’m not skilled enough. Get me goin’ about breasts, though, and I’ll chime in! See you in another debate!
