Debating

[David]

These, I believe, are crucial things to think about with debating. I'm posting it here because of the number of political discussions/arguments that occur in this forum. I think it's useful to at least consider these points anyway:

The best chance we have to make intelligent decisions is by seeing things with as much clarity as possible, and with an absence of bias or agendas.

If we are trying to prove a theory, we will often find what we're looking for, and ignore everything else.

Every question has an answer. We may never find the answer, but there is an answer all the same.

You may have the right answer, but for the wrong reason. Therefore whether you have the right answer or not is irrelevant.

Emotion lessens the possibility of rational argument.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does everybody agree with these points? Granted, some may seem obvious but I think some of them could be debated themselves.

Anyone got any others they'd like to add?

[Didaicos]

I believe in two things Collingwood and myself and even they let me down....

Bias is a hard thing to judge because we all believe it exists but we don't think we are biased.
I'm trying more and more to avoid political arguments...especially on the net; it makes me angry and depressed and achieves nothing.
I think the internet has with regard to politics done more to divide people than anything else; people not thinking before they type-others taking things the wrong way.

[David]

I think the reason why political debates achieve nothing is because of pride, more than anything else. People develop their set political ideas at an early age, and while they might change over time, it hurts to accept that you're wrong if it's something you've strongly believed in for 20 or more years.

I think that's why they have that saying 'never bring up religion or politics' because you rarely get constructive argument, just people stubbornly fighting for their own views, on either side of the debate. It does divide people too.... creates a bit of an 'us and them' thing.

[Culprit]

There are very few people on here that will have a debate and that would merely come down to an age thing.

Many people do not like politcal debates as they are not prepared to understand all the issues involved. Apathy is the Australian way.

As far as religeon goes, it's divisive by nature and will always cause a storm.

Unless you are prepared to listen to another view you should steer clear of all discussions.

Many people are populist in their views. What ever is popular at the time that will be their view. Anyone who has any brains will actually think for themselves and be more open to a discussion.

If you don't like it, don't join in. Personally I am always open for a debate , then again I come from a poiltical background.

[David]

True. A lot just parrot what the newspaper said, or Michael Moore, or John Laws or whatever. It's a bad thing.

[Donny]

It's not a bad thing at all, David. It's a starting point.

Someone may learn to think for themselves if you rationally question their point of view.

Frinstance: Poster A submits an opinion you consider to be parroting of a philosophy or MM or whoever.

You (poster B) submit an alternate view.

Poster C may then think both points of view have some merit and agrees with those points but disagrees with others.

So far, it's a healthy debate/discussion.

Then poster D comes in with, "You're a moron" and (unless a friendly mod steps in before either A, B or C replies ) ruins things.

I'm glad you brought up this subject, David. I love debate and am often disappointed when a reasonable debate in Nick's or my cricket site so often plummets into a slanging match.

Culprit's, "Unless you are prepared to listen to another view you should steer clear of all discussions." hits the spot.

As far as I'm concerned, a debate or discussion results in all parties learning something. That may be that poster B was quite correct but it's not really the point of the exercise.

[David]

You're right. It's by debating that our views are tested by others. It is far easier to support an unsupportable view if no-one challenges you on it.

I wasn't saying that it's a bad thing to agree with John Laws, or Mick Malthouse. It's just that there are people out there who, if you scratch beneath the surface, their political orientation is 'whatever John Laws says'. I know this because I realised going back two or three years that my political opinion was based around whatever my Dad said. I soon came to realise that some of the things that I would argue for had no logical support whatsoever, other than that that was what he believed in, therefore it was true. I think it's true that the ideas of those around us (friends or family) do influence all of us, and that is not necessarily a bad thing - but we really do have to look for the answers ourselves and judge opinion on its merits, and not just whether it fits with the political opinion that we have already developed.

oh and here's something else I should have added in the first post:

There is an argument and counter-argument for just about everything, and depending on the skill of the person making the argument, it can sound very valid. In other words, you will always find an argument to back up your point of view. This only serves to strengthen our barriers against contradicting ideas and narrows our minds further.

[leelee]

Does curling up on the floor and yelling go away count as good or poor debating skills? haha