Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Question of debate motive.

LayersofLols
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 7:32:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Fundamentally, is debating more motivated by the urge to prove yourself right, the opponent wrong, to explore the idea of the resolution itself or to consistently conclude that there never is such a thing as a right opinion?

If unsure, please rank the ones you're sure of out of these 4.

Explain rankings in as much detail as you can, I will check back on this.
Just before you die will you remember a life of your smile changing the world or of the world changing your smile?
LayersofLols
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 7:42:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 7:40:39 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Awesome sig dude, lol.

Is so kawaii no? ;)
Just before you die will you remember a life of your smile changing the world or of the world changing your smile?
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,373
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 7:44:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 7:42:30 PM, LayersofLols wrote:
At 1/2/2015 7:40:39 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Awesome sig dude, lol.

Is so kawaii no? ;)

extremely
i <3 it
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 7:50:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The answer is the first two, generally, which are two sides of the same coin.
But,
"The honesty of him who is at present inflexible often causes him remorse; for inflexibility is the virtue of a time different from that in which honesty prevails."
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 7:56:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 7:32:25 PM, LayersofLols wrote:
Fundamentally, is debating more motivated by the urge to prove yourself right, the opponent wrong, to explore the idea of the resolution itself or to consistently conclude that there never is such a thing as a right opinion?

I debate to explore the resolution and also to put forth my own opinion to see how it is tested in fire.

If unsure, please rank the ones you're sure of out of these 4.

Explain rankings in as much detail as you can, I will check back on this.
Nolite Timere
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 7:57:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 7:32:25 PM, LayersofLols wrote:
Fundamentally, is debating more motivated by the urge to prove yourself right, the opponent wrong, to explore the idea of the resolution itself or to consistently conclude that there never is such a thing as a right opinion?

If unsure, please rank the ones you're sure of out of these 4.

Explain rankings in as much detail as you can, I will check back on this.

Any definitive answer I could provide would oversimplify the issue. It's too complex of a question with too many issues at play to make a definitive conclusion.

Some people view debate as an opportunity to prove themselves right, verifying their views. They see the act of debating as self-validation, bringing the full weight of their argument to bear. Their argument is often the basis of a deeply-held belief that they believe cannot be shaken. These are the kinds of people who get really invested in the decision to a huge degree, often arguing with judges on the basis that they believe that truly cannot be wrong.

The opportunity to prove an opponent wrong is often based on the same principle. They wish to debase an opinion different from theirs on the basis that they feel that their stance is best. That can be based in belief. It's also often based in a desire to win as debate is, fundamentally, a game. The most straightforward way to win, for the most part, is to prove your opponent wrong. These people will also argue with judges, but usually on the basis that a loss shows that they weren't up to the task, and thus were inadequate to play the game.

Some people certainly seek to explore the ideas behind the resolution itself. Exploring a topic is usually not a big part of why people debate, as there are less "risky" avenues for topic exploration, and people tend to like to bring their A game to a debate. Still, I think this is probably, at the very least, the most pervasive reason involved in why anyone debates. We debate to understand. That's the reason we play debate instead of, say, checkers. We seek to take something with us, a bit of knowledge that we did not have before. Whether we garner that from our opponents or our own research, it can often have very deep implications on how we view a particular issue. I know I wouldn't continue debating if I didn't feel I could garner such knowledge. For someone like this, arguing with the judges is effectively pointless, since the knowledge is garnered before the judge renders their decision.

The last one you listed is interesting: "to consistently conclude that there never is such a thing as a right opinion" is really an opposition-only stance. Building an actual positive case where you state that "a right opinion doesn't exist" is rather difficult, and still puts you on what is effectively the opposition. The fundamental function of this argument is basically to troll solid opinions, stating that they are only solid because we fail to thoroughly understand them. As such, in many ways, this argument follows the same line as "the opponent is wrong," focusing on a single facet of why that could be. It's not very different from that, just taking it to an extreme.

I will add one other that I think you missed, which is that debaters wish to test their arguments. There are a lot of instances where people merely wish to express their opinion with the aim being towards examining what pieces of their arguments work and which ones need work. In this case, it's not that they won't argue with the judges, so much as they'll explore the way the judges analyzed the round. This is actually a very constructive way to debate, and I think more debaters should go in with this mindset.
LayersofLols
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 8:03:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 7:57:49 PM, whiteflame wrote:

Brilliant answer but regarding your last paragraph the only reason to test arguments is to improve as a debater. the only reason to improve will ultimately be one of the four.
Just before you die will you remember a life of your smile changing the world or of the world changing your smile?
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 8:07:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 8:03:15 PM, LayersofLols wrote:
At 1/2/2015 7:57:49 PM, whiteflame wrote:

Brilliant answer but regarding your last paragraph the only reason to test arguments is to improve as a debater. the only reason to improve will ultimately be one of the four.

I disagree. Debate isn't always a step towards more debate, though that is often true. It's a step towards improving persuasiveness, but that doesn't mean that the purpose of that improved persuasion is to employ it in further debate. And even if the purpose is to continue to pursue debate, the reasoning can always be the same - to test one's arguments in different environments against different opponents. It can be a continuous process with no real end, and as such, not involve any of the four.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 8:08:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 7:32:25 PM, LayersofLols wrote:
Fundamentally, is debating more motivated by the urge to prove yourself right, the opponent wrong, to explore the idea of the resolution itself or to consistently conclude that there never is such a thing as a right opinion?

If unsure, please rank the ones you're sure of out of these 4.

Explain rankings in as much detail as you can, I will check back on this.

I think debate is more a matter of necessity, especially in politics and government, where decisions need to be made on legislation and policies.

Of course, not all debating is done to make decisions. A lot of debating can be done informally or on websites like this one, and I think people partake in that kind of activity because they want to discuss or argue a topic they're interested in to fulfill one of the first two motives you listed (or maybe they want to fulfill both).
LayersofLols
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 8:11:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 8:07:48 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 1/2/2015 8:03:15 PM, LayersofLols wrote:
At 1/2/2015 7:57:49 PM, whiteflame wrote:

Brilliant answer but regarding your last paragraph the only reason to test arguments is to improve as a debater. the only reason to improve will ultimately be one of the four.

I disagree. Debate isn't always a step towards more debate, though that is often true. It's a step towards improving persuasiveness, but that doesn't mean that the purpose of that improved persuasion is to employ it in further debate. And even if the purpose is to continue to pursue debate, the reasoning can always be the same - to test one's arguments in different environments against different opponents. It can be a continuous process with no real end, and as such, not involve any of the four.

Oh.... For the sheer love of debating and persuasiveness itself for no end... Interesting, I guess I just can't relate to such emotional thinking. thanks though, I didn't think of people like this before.
Just before you die will you remember a life of your smile changing the world or of the world changing your smile?
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 8:12:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 8:11:11 PM, LayersofLols wrote:
At 1/2/2015 8:07:48 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 1/2/2015 8:03:15 PM, LayersofLols wrote:
At 1/2/2015 7:57:49 PM, whiteflame wrote:

Brilliant answer but regarding your last paragraph the only reason to test arguments is to improve as a debater. the only reason to improve will ultimately be one of the four.

I disagree. Debate isn't always a step towards more debate, though that is often true. It's a step towards improving persuasiveness, but that doesn't mean that the purpose of that improved persuasion is to employ it in further debate. And even if the purpose is to continue to pursue debate, the reasoning can always be the same - to test one's arguments in different environments against different opponents. It can be a continuous process with no real end, and as such, not involve any of the four.

Oh.... For the sheer love of debating and persuasiveness itself for no end... Interesting, I guess I just can't relate to such emotional thinking. thanks though, I didn't think of people like this before.

No problem. I'll admit, I'm not one of those people myself :P