The Instigator
Lizard3eyes
Con (against)
The Contender
DemosthenesNow
Pro (for)

Is Debate Effective For Solving Issues

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
DemosthenesNow has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 291 times Debate No: 114237
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (0)

 

Lizard3eyes

Con

Frankly I hope to lose this debate, but I will argue it to the best of my ability. Debate has been used all throughout history to address issues ranging from comical topics to life changing ones. But has it actually solved the issues addressed in any given debate? And if it has, was that the most effective way to find the given solution? I will be arguing that debate often does not lead to solutions to problems addressed in said debate and any solutions found due to debate could have been found much more effectively. I implore my opponent to argue that debate does in fact find solutions and does so effectively. If you accept my challenge, I thank you.

I am not very experienced but I hope to be competent enough to provide intriguing thoughts and opinions to discuss. I will be arguing pretty informally as i have yet to get the hang of debating in general. I will be respectful of your statements and opinions and address them in the context of debate and do not desire to agitate or belittle any contender, I am treated by with the same standard. Thank you.
DemosthenesNow

Pro

I believe that this debate can be settled by looking at the fundamental processes of governments, and possibly even mankind. There are many different ways you could begin this study, but let's first turn to analyzing what the world would be like without debate on the governmental level. Thousands of years of history can prove to us that the absence of such argumentative discussion leads to the rise of monarchies or divisive tribalism, as the only deciding factors in group leadership would be based on attributes that have no relation to intellectual discernment among potential followers of these leaders, such as physical strength or ancestral heritage. These systems of ruling could be connected to the Dark Ages of the Middle Ages, during which Feudalism and Monarchies were the two major ruling systems. These systems, as exemplified in the timeline given, are not optimal circumstances for intellectual growth of any kind. If we remain trapped in forms of instinctive government such as these, we would never be able to have minds, individual or not, spread their ideas to others. And this is an important distinction to make - if debate is not apart of the world we live in, how can any change take place? Thomas Paine could very well go and write his 'Common Sense' - it just couldn't be spread by the common people. And democracy, as the desired governmental set-up for most countries, would never be a possibility. All in all, we would be trapped in an endless cycle of 'caveman' behavior in which we are incapable of bettering our world due to the combining of minds for the benefit of mankind. With this in mind, if we address how this is evidence for debate being effective for solving issues, we can see, again with help from history, that it already has been and will continue to be. The fact that we do not have the previously discussed governmental systems today, and that democracy is abundant across the world, shows how debate has already been instrumental in shaping the world around us already, and in a positive way. It would also be absolutely reasonable to state that we would remain in stone age like technological phases without debate as a way to spread and encourage the growth of ideas on any scale. I believe others would find it difficult to find a system of advancement equal to mankind's natural tendency to discuss and debate the world he resides in and all of its constituents.
Debate Round No. 1
Lizard3eyes

Con

Hello, Thank you for accepting my challenge. To reiterate, i will be arguing that debating is ineffective for solving issues addressed in said debates and rarely does so. To explain what I mean, i will provide an example. In a debate where the topic being contested is "Which is better, Red or Green?" The people contesting this topic will be forced to provide for themselves a definition of the word "better" in the context of comparing two colors. Doing this would likely provide an interesting discussion in which those involved would learn about the properties of both colors, pros and cons of both colors, and how both colors have historically impacted humanity, but would it resolve the conflict? Due to the terms of the debate being almost entirely ambiguous and that arguing the topic would be a presentation of opinions it would be virtually impossible to determine whether or not the conflict is in fact resolvable through debating that topic alone.

Another example, in the past it was believed that the earth was the center of our solar system, If today we were to debate whether it was the earth or the sun that was the center of our solar system, the debate would just be a presentation of facts, and the side that could provide the most relevant and correct evidence would win that debate. Does this process prove that one side or the other is in fact correct? Say the side that defended the earth being the center of the solar system won said debate. Would this mean that we should all believe this as fact? Or is there a much better method to resolving this conflict such as rigorous scientific investigation? I would say so. Facts are generally indisputable and to dispute them would require vigorous testing and peer studies, not open debate.

I do not mean to discredit debate or argument as useless, it has many uses as you have stated. These uses, however, are indirect, through debating a topic, we present information on said topic as well as elaborating on why there is a conflict in the first place. This raises awareness of the conflict and incentivizes us to solve the conflict through more efficient means. This property of argument has been invaluable for shaping our lives today as well as promoting ideals that promote fairness and informed discussion but not in solving the conflict in itself.

I hope to continue a pleasant debate and I hope you can identify any flaws in my reasoning or presentation. Thank you
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mosc 3 months ago
mosc
Dude you make your own religion and call it judaism. LOL What do you also declare that the Rebbe is not dead and that he is the Moshiach! LOL what a total joke. :)
Posted by mosc 3 months ago
mosc
Where to start? Learn how to read!!! Already shown that the Book of Job did not follow the Socratic method!

"Well, if twelve rabbis agree with me (and I only asked them just to make sure!), then that means they are too? " Bunk. You have repeatedly garbled what i have written. This strongly indicates that you garbled my message to others. These "rabbis" should know better than to rely upon your gossip. Mishle and Tehillem you call philosophy? LOL What a total joke. No Reshon ever held that either of these Books of Holy Writings as part of the NaCH literature held such an absurd idiotic viewpoint.

Socratic Torah...written by a kappo Ju like yourself.
Posted by judaism 3 months ago
judaism
. . . Where do I start!

Job is ALL ABOUT PHILOSOPHY! Iyov's the philosopher!

If I am a l'shon ha'ra? Well, if twelve rabbis agree with me (and I only asked them just to make sure!), then that means they are too?

I've read philosophy, I know of all which you speak of. Tanakh teaches philosophy, look at Proverbs, some of Psalms, etc. You think there's no philosophy in there? All Torah is philosophy, how does a good Jew led the best life spiritually? Guess what. . . surprise surprise, that's philosophy!

There's also a good book out there called "Socratic Torah." You can figure for yourself what that title's suggesting.
Posted by mosc 3 months ago
mosc
Francis Bacon the father of empiricism. The scientific method: knowledge its limited to physical evidence only. The list of atheist philophers of the 19th and 20th centuries - quite extensive. Descartes and Voltaire, two of my favorite of the European pig philosophers.

So kappo, i look forward to seeing how you declare that the NaCH literature argues philosophy. LOL what a totally ignorant and brain dead declaration on your part. But according to you, I am sure your rabbi and some 12 others too hold that the NaCH literature teaches philosophy. Reform Jus suck.
Posted by mosc 3 months ago
mosc
Medieval philosophy thrived in both Arab and latin based cultures. ibn Roshd (Averroes) was a favorite Arab scholar of Aristotle whose knowledge of Greek Logic the Rambam highly praised respected and relied upon. But Al Kindi most consider him as the father of Arab philosophy. Latin philosophers stuggled with theories of reason, Boethius being a good example wrote: The Consolation of Philosophy. Anselm redeveloped the Socratic method of dialectics. Bonaventure was an early Latin scholar of the rediscovered literature of Aristotle. Aquinas made Aristotle popular and the church fully embraced his logic from thereon. Aquinas, his philosophy sought to understand the nature of the soul. His primary backdrop being Aristotle. Ockham too based his philosophies upon Aristotle. The medieval church based their theories which developed into rigid dogmatism which defined the catholic church upon Greek philosophy.

Marsilio Ficino revived Platonism in Europe. He's famous for his quest to reveal the nature of the soul. Giovanni Pico della Mirandola delved into a revived Gnosticism, he was highly influenced by the Jewish Gnostic work of the 10 Sefirot emanations. This Gnostic idea emanations, common in the Gnostic Gospels, highly influenced the Jewish mysticism of the middle ages. Pomponazzi highly and deeply influenced by Averroes. For him, Aristotle was king. Like Aristotle he argued that the soul died when the body died. He sought to distinguish between the intellectual soul from the sensitive soul... blah blah blah.

Albertus Magnus his philosophy made investigations on nature and the divine, he argued that the 2 subjects have distinct methods, and that revelation disagrees at times with arguments based on reason and experience. Bernardino Telesio, his philosophy speculated upon the creation of the universe. He rejected Aristotelian notion of a bipartite cosmos divided into a sublunary world, in which generation and corruption take place,
Posted by mosc 3 months ago
mosc
Still waiting for you to bring some evidence of philosophy in the NaCH literature. Yo fool put up or shut up. The book of Job its any thing but philosophy. The philosophic method developed by Socrates centers around asking questions. The friends of Job did not ask questions, those fools like yourself only argued by means of making declarations.
Posted by mosc 3 months ago
mosc
Noise, name names. I see how you garble and slander what i clearly and repeatedly communicate to you. If you have spoken of me to your rabbi or some 12 others its clear that you spoke l'shon ha'ra. The Talmud teaches that l'shon ha'ra murders 3 people, the speaker, the listener, and the person slandered. Bloody kappo Ju do t'shuva before you die.
Posted by judaism 3 months ago
judaism
My rabbi, about a dozen others.
Posted by mosc 3 months ago
mosc
Noise. What specific rabbis do not agree with me. Fool. Learn how to communicate correctly.
Posted by judaism 3 months ago
judaism
No rabbis agree with you. You just got your accusations from some silly site and bought it on the spot.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.