Is debating arguing?

[Angel]

I do NOT like debating. It always comes across to me as arguing.
When you debate with others, do you and your debato-ree discuss the same exact opinion in different ways?
Do you get ticked off a lot? Be honest now.

There's a reason I stay from the Discussion and Debate forum. :P

 

[Cturtle]

I do NOT like debating. It always comes across to me as arguing.
When you debate with others, do you and your debato-ree discuss the same exact opinion in different ways?
Do you get ticked off a lot? Be honest now.

There's a reason I stay from the Discussion and Debate forum. :tongue

I fully agree! I have the hardest time with debating, cuz i agree it just sounds like arguing. But a lot of people are just talking and some get energized, and it makes them to study the Word more.

 

[Deborah13]

I'd say debating is stating ones side of an argument but it is not fight.
I don't get angry at someone else because they have a different view than I do. That's their freedom. I would never want to see that taken away from them.

 

[Deborah13]

I fully agree! I have the hardest time with debating, cuz i agree it just sounds like arguing. But a lot of people are just talking and some get energized, and it makes them to study the Word more.

Lol. You have made a good point.
When I do get involved in one of these debate type discussions and I am searching for different scriptures to make my point, I end up all over the Bible. I actually have to be careful because I read one that points to another and before I know it I've forgotten where I began and have to go back and reread the post I was responding to and my sign in has timed out. 2 The Bible is awesome.

 

[Blake]

It's not arguing... But without incredible restraint it quickly turns into it. Especially when you're emotionally invested in your position.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Debate can be a good learning tool, but because people let their emotions get too involved it can easily become an argument. Debate should be about learning, getting to know your arguments better and learning more about the opposing arguments, rather than making people agree with you.
I have a love/hate relationship with debate. It's a nightmare to me, even without people's attitudes there's a lot of pressure to present your case in a way so as to be convincing to others. But on the other hand I do enjoy discussing things intelligently.

 

[WIP]

In simple terms from Merriam-Webster.com...
Debate: "a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something."
Argue: to give reasons for or against something : to say or write things in order to change someone's opinion about what is true, what should be done, etc.
: to cause (someone) to decide to do or not do something by giving reasons.
: to disagree or fight by using angry words.

One will use argument in a debate to prove or support their position. A debate however, if done properly, should never become a heated argument because both sides remain civil and respectful of the other keeping their comments directed on the topic of the discussion ane their own views about it.

An argument on the other hand can often become heated as one side will begin to question or discredit the other not based on the facts but on a more personal level. Many times this is done in very subtle ways. An example where I see this happening in our forums might be when one side makes a statement like, "I follow Christ blah...blah...blah" or "I speak the truth blah...blah...blah." These kinds of statements immediately put the opposition in a defensive posture because this statement implies that they do not follow Christ or they do not speak the truth. This is when we have to step in as moderators and try to redirect the discussion back to the topic.

In terms of how I would like to see the debates progress on this site is where we would debate not for the purpose of winning the debate but for the purpose of learning from each other as the Holy Spirit guides us closer to maturity in our faith. The problem is that we are too full of pride and unwilling to admit or concede that we may be the one being taught.

 

[ReginaForbes]

I love to debate, it's a great exercise in knowledge, oratory, and self-control.
I hate to argue, it's just yelling at each other.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Well. In debate you propose an argument.

 

[Obadiah]

Well. In debate you propose an argument.

No, you propose a "resolution". For example: "Be it resolved that advertizing degrades the quality of life." In strict debate, both sides then follow a strict set of rules in which they either support or contend the resolution with facts backed by evidence. The quality of the facts and their evidence as well as the amount for each side determines who wins.

I have a friend who was a national champion in collegiate debate. He used to practice his tactics with me a lot and we used to brainstorm new tactics together. It was great fun. But I always remember he used to tell me that the person who gets angry in a debate is the person who will lose that debate! A proper debate is not a place for anger and fighting.

 

[jasonc]

rules of logical fallacies?

 

[Milk-Drops]

rules of logical fallacies?

Don't forget sophistry.

 

[jasonc]

ok, honest reasoning. I had to look up sophistry. am I right?

 

[Milk-Drops]

ok, honest reasoning. I had to look up sophistry. am I right?

If I remember correctly sophistry is about using shady arguing tactics to win a debate or argument.

 

[jasonc]

If I remember core cry sophistry is about using shady arguing tactics to win a debate or argument.

I have seen that here but I didn't know we had terms for that. sadly I think that happens at times in the science forum and also politics.

 

[Obadiah]

If I remember core cry sophistry is about using shady arguing tactics to win a debate or argument.

I have seen that here but I didn't know we had terms for that. sadly I think that happens at times in the science forum and also politics.

That's very common in competitive debate in high school or college. The difference in real life debate, such as what we should have here in our debate forums, is that in competitive debate the goal is to win. In real life debate, especially on matters that are important, the goal should be to teach, to learn, or both in order to help everyone move along toward a common and worthwhile goal. Shady arguing tactics hinder this process.

It's also interesting to note that most high level politicians are people who excelled in competitive debate when they were in school.

 

[jasonc]

That's very common in competitive debate in high school or college. The difference in real life debate, such as what we should have here in our debate forums, is that in competitive debate the goal is to win. In real life debate, especially on matters that are important, the goal should be to teach, to learn, or both in order to help everyone move along toward a common and worthwhile goal. Shady arguing tactics hinder this process.

It's also interesting to note that most high level politicians are people who excelled in competitive debate when they were in school.

I haven't watch much debates. given the nature of what you said. its a show as well of who is pretty. I don't bother. honest questions verses loaded questions.

 

[Obadiah]

I haven't watch much debates. given the nature of what you said. its a show as well of who is pretty. I don't bother. honest questions verses loaded questions.

"Competitive" debate is a game to win, just like football or baseball. It's not about who's right, it's about who can win (many times by stretching the rules to their limits). The person that wins may very well also be the person that's right, but many times that's not the case and in competition it doesn't matter. That's not the kind of debate that should be had when discussing things that matter, whether politics, theology, or the best way to balance the family budget.

 

[jasonc]

"Competitive" debate is a game to win, just like football or baseball. It's not about who's right, it's about who can win (many times by stretching the rules to their limits). The person that wins may very well also be the person that's right, but many times that's not the case and in competition it doesn't matter. That's not the kind of debate that should be had when discussing things that matter, whether politics, theology, or the best way to balance the family budget.

I should have added political debates. one could say that a courtroom is a type of debate. the lawyers used the adversarial debate approach in their cases.

 

[Obadiah]

I should have added political debates. one could say that a courtroom is a type of debate. the lawyers used the adversarial debate approach in their cases.

Yeah, I mentioned a lot of high level politicians were champion competitive debaters. So are successful trial lawyers. And have you noticed how many high level politicians also used to be lawyers? That's what makes a court judge's job such a tough one. They have to see through all the lawyers competitive debate tactics in order to try to get to the truth. Fortunately most judges are ex-lawyers themselves so they are well aware of the tactics being used by the lawyers.