|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| |||||||||||||||
Date: 7/5/2013 6:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 21903
I'm def no debate master. lol, but I see where you're coming from. I think if you are to be more successful at a debate it would be best to know your opponents point of view, but I just don't have that kind of time: I'm too hot-headed. Probably that is why my brother and I argue as much as we do.  (In fairness, he DEFINITELY doesn't/seems incapable of taking another point of view as well  )  |
|
Date: 7/5/2013 7:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Well, look who the cat drug in! I enter into a debate in a non-personal mode, meaning that I don' view anyone who has an opposing view as an "enemy". I am certainly not saying that it remains thusly, though. What I mean by that is I will argue on a matter that is of personal interest to me, which I have hard-held principals regarding. Should someone debate me on those principals, then just in their responses I am usually quite capable of understanding the argument. Unfortunately, many debates devolve into insults and name-calling, thus the concept of "enemy" coming to play. Otherwise, I prefer to think of those whom make sound, logical, reasonable arguments to be intellectual adversaries. And you, Ben, say what? God Bless.  |
Date: 7/5/2013 7:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 42945
Difficult question, but in the terms of a debate, any person discussing any subject cannot or maybe shouldn't debate them, unless they know some facts of both sides of the argument..Problem is, arguments about any subject is what we believe until we are proven wrong, and that is what the purpose of a debate is..Don't know your facts??? leave it alone! JMO!  |
|
Date: 7/5/2013 8:06:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 63194
To throw in the political aspect.. if you take "debates" that occur in our house and senate, you find that they aren't actually debates at all. It is merely opposing views being presented as absolute, with little argument to the points of the other. Deb! How have you been? Enemy is probably the least desirable yet most effective way to pose the question. I think it very human to look at personal belief and decide you have a friend or foe. I suppose, Deb, the deciding point is the intent or nature of the opposition - is it malicious in its disagreement*, or does it merely disagree? If the latter, I'll jump on your wagon as an adversary. *which may be to say, is a malicious disagreement based on fact, or would a person just think or behave contrarily for the sake of being in disagreement of an adversary or enemy?  |
|
Date: 7/5/2013 8:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
I have been well, thank you. In response to your asterisk question, I think what you have described as to how things work in Congress, that a whole lot of what goes on there IS wholly based on trying to stick it to the other party, period. God Bless. |
Date: 7/5/2013 9:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 53427
I think you must know all aspects of the argument, or you risk looking very foolish. This is why I rarely participate in the debate section. But if you.are willing to risk it, and jump into the debate, you should always keep an open mind. And you should be able to back up your opinion with facts, not I believe this just because.. And I like people to think for themselves, not say I believe such and such because I am a Republican, or because I am Christian and the Bible says so.  |
Date: 7/5/2013 11:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 64819
Yes, you should always know your enemy.  |
Date: 7/6/2013 11:44:00 AM
From Authorid: 36901
You should be informed for sure. It's almost impossible to argue against something you know nothing about. In high school, we were required to research and write a paper for both sides before a debate. It made things a lot more interesting and we all learned a lot.  |
Date: 7/6/2013 2:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 62821
I suppose the problem here is that, in terms of religion, if you are Christian and entertain atheist thoughts, for a moment you are atheist! The question is do you want to be a good debater, or do you wish to be a master in your own field? Having said that, just because you are a master does not mean you can't enter into debates. Perhaps you wish to be a master debater? In that case, know your enemy.  |
|
Date: 7/6/2013 6:26:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 63194
Dan - I've been accused of being a master debater, but also of not being such a master in less independent forums, so to speak. Thus the importance of honing ones skill and understanding the other side... Any-who, I suppose as debates go, it was a poor choice on my part to make religion the leading example for this, as religion is almost impossible to debate given that one side is often faith based - something that cannot be proven, and the other side sometimes fact based. I mean to emphasize SOMETIMES. The challenge the opposition to religion has with having facts on their side and being up against faith is that faiths weakness is also its strength. While it cannot be proven, there is no absolute fact, in my opinion, that tells me that it can be disproved. You'll only go in circles with debates on religion. Any suggestions as to another subject that might better lend to the main question? |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
