DEBATING 101

[oneoff]

What might be needed to get some civility back into society is to sincerely try some tried and true concepts that most participants in arguments have either forgotten or never been exposed to.

I would suggest that the art of debating would have some application in this regard .

For instance lets have a debate about the topic " Religion has beome irrelevant in today's society" . The debating team includes TOM4CWB as well as DOGDUNG, LEP etc. Well; first off; the object is to shred the opposition with logical arguments and reasoned attacks so that the audience or adjudicator concludes which team provided the best arguments to win the debate for just that half hour on that particular day....Nothing more.

The trick is that TOM4CWB; for that short time only; because Tom is big enough and confident enough; and a good sport enough to agree to argue that religion is indeed irrelevant.
And the audience and church members and the Lord are hopefully as tolerant of the good that will come from the new found respect for differing opinions and the chance to see that in addition to both sides arguments; there may also be the truth.

It all in looking at issues though different eyes than our own.

And a lot of people are indeed not big enough; or good enough sports..............................

[TOM4CWB]

Oneoff,

We were created, however you believe
that happened; with individual will,
conscience, and freedom to choose who we
serve.
Everything else is secondary. All
opinions are valid from the base they
are creative ideas, thought and
expressed for the reason intended.

Cheers

[cottonpicken]

I remember in high school being taught the debate
thing.

I was put up against the "smart kids",by the end of it
they had red cheeks and tears in their eyes and the
teacher couldn't stop laughing,one of the very few
things i'm good at.

[wilagro]

oneoff: I think that it would be more fun to watch a family of bonobos interact than a debate involving religion OR religious people.

[mbratrud]

I have been known to be a stubborn frustrating debater. LOL. Best most recent was discusion with Private Insurance Co on how many crops was least risky.

[Burbert]

Religion and marketing go hand in hand in
Comedia it seems. Hopin and prayin ta get
the best price cousin otherwise the fram
is goin ta go ta hell in a handbasket.
Angriville should have a SPECIAL thread
fer religion on this site, it wood be very
popular..........

[cottonpicken]

Its like a war.

You need to know your sides strengths and
weakness's,and the othersides strengths and
weakness,then you need to exploit them.

Tom could say things like-millions of people take
great comfort in religion-i feel sorry for people who
can't believe in something bigger and greater-how is
it possible the human life is one big evolutionary
accident-who is anyone to judge the billions of
people who believe in it-just because people don't go
to church as often doesn't mean their faith is any
less-the moral base of goodness in religion is needed
in our society more than ever-


Opposite side-look at the wars fought over it-look at
all the pedophiles in it-when you look at it close
enough it looks like a cult-how can you have faith in
something that has no base in reality-if there is a god
how come there are so many horrible things
happening-look at all the conflicting views with
science on things we know to be true

[oneoff]

Plese read the post again.

"Tom" wouldn't make any of those defensive statements in such a debate if he was charged with taking the affirmative position. In this case he would be demonstrating that he could powerfully and decisively win the debate even though he was choking hard with every blaphemous word uttered. Such a debate has nothing to do with one's personal beliefs.
The object is certainly not to have both sides making the same point; nor to give either side a platform for their crusades. It is to promote stimulating thoughts that are put forth in the most pointed and convincing fashion that both opposing views can muster. And to open everyone's minds to critical thinking; opposing views and expanding one's knowledge of subjects that are not fully apprecited from the many points of view.
In such a debate; whether you are arguing the affirmtive position; or the other side; the side on which you find yourself defending or attackingyis not chosen on the basis of your bias, belief or comfort level that may best suit your comfort zone.

Thats the purpose of having oneself capable of recognizing both sides (or all sides) of any issue and demonstrating that you could mount a credable defence no matter what side you were asked to defend.

Sorry fellows; but I think you missed the point; and don't understand how such a debate differs from coffee shop defences of long standing positions that we mght feel most comfortable with.

And if what I've said can't be understood; then it is further proof that the human mind pretty well works on the basis of readily accepting any argument that supports one's firmly held beliefs; and at the same time outright rejecting all other informtion.

[oneoff]

There's always an easier side to be on as cotton might well admit.

And that teacher in charge of the debate some time ago might well haveseen to it that one party had " one hand tied behind this back" by giving the most difficult side to the strongest debater.

Thus deliberately making it more of a challenge to overcome the popular sentiment. By doing so; all would have effectively won in some forms or other.

[cottonpicken]

Lol,my final kill shot was shutting them down because
they went over their allotted time.(true story)

They bla,bla,bla,bla on and on,completely incapable
of putting thoughts and ideas in short to the point
sentences.

Not an uncommon handicap.

[gregpet]

Kind of like the original poster cp?

[oneoff]

OK so the debate idea was too deep for some.

Try this. It would clearly show if those people understood what sound waves or ink were being directed at openings in their heads.

The challenge is simply to write a short essay repeating the arguments of the other side. Thus proving they did listen and could put it to paper.

Shouldn't be difficult; but who believes that anyone but a few could accomplish that task.

Now cotton did come closest to understanging what a debate entails; however he made no mention of ever having to defend the opposite side to what he would ordinarily be supporting.

So you all failed to recognize the basics rules of that form of debate training.

[gregpet]

Class dismissed.