REAL QUESTION: IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A DEBATE WITH OUT AN ARGUMENT?
 

Now I know the question is vague but let me elaborate....

I’ve always heard that debates are the hishest form of education. Only the most advanced society’s have debated right?

But I’ve never seen a debate not regress to a simple name calling, my views are better than yours, your wrong I’m right form.

So...

Is it actually possible to have a legit debate? And are there examples of this through out history?

I ask this simple becuase every issue brought up on NC is always disputed and never brought to a satisfactory end...

Opinions?

Not on the internet

yes, its the same as an artist sexual agender from i without you..

or a philisophy..
because it covers soo many duplicate grounds to be correct once, in fields that cover open/no answer
the only way to answer it is more open/no answers
until the cross of its completion settles in..

you just have to keep on looking to it.. worst case scenario you land as a lecture for what to do & what not to do..

What would you like us to have a debate on that doesn't lead to an argument...?

Sexual genders. Obv

It depends on the individuals involve. Most times when hving a debate its against someone who doesn't hv the same beliefs ss you.
For ex, i look at mny things from a logical perspective so i tend to butt heads w.one who uses emotion to fuel their debate. Not saying this is the case w.everyone, or this is always the case w.me but in many situations it tends to go tht way.
Interent gives mny a platform to speak much of their true inner feels w.out fear. Then there are people who like to be argumentative just for the sake of. Most times when it resorts to name calling, the argument is being loss do they try to bring you dwn to their lvl. Or they hv nothing to present to the table in the first place & are using it as bait to get attention from ya.
We as in people are nt complicated. Actions will reveal all.
This is all imo tho.

I think suth just closed thread.

From my understanding debates are typically a group of individuals with data and facts
in their presentations to back up their view points.

Arguments involved no facts and are generally hear say vs hear say with some references from google lol. Typically the NC "Debate" threads.

Like Suth said - I doubt there will ever be a satisfactory closing on a "debate" here because people get in their feelings. Or begin to attack someone who's views differ because they are dick riders and allow others or the "Popular" persona to drive their views.

Debates and constructive arguments are meant to change opinions, not beliefs. Not many things belong in the beliefs column for any given person. All debates become arguments here because of trolling. Not that everyone trolls, but one troll in a thread can lean it to an argument. Also ego. People that aren’t willing to accept that their opinions might be at least somewhat wrong will just argue at walls.

Beliefs was def the wrong wrd. But you're right.

i do it a lot on FB

but i only get the same courtesy back about a quarter of the time

anyone entering a debate with the objective of changing the other persons mind failed.

your only hope is to look more sane to the people on the sidelines. nothing that is hard fact can be logically debated, you're simply trying to sway the people who never decided to have a thought on whatever standpoint is being debated.

This is a shit way of thinking. This logic is why name calling and non-arguments are overused in debates.

Debates consist of arguing different points to an agreed conclusion. Its only when no agreed conclusion can be met that it becomes the modern use of the word *argument*

But by the nature of a debate one must argue ones point.

if you don't have an unwavering standpoint you shouldn't be debating something imo

you've looked at all the facts and came to your own conclusion. if someone else can bring facts you havent seen to the debate that changes your mind you shouldnt have been debating in the first place.

NC's is a place where the uninformed debate all the time though, i'm more talking from the scope of history

do you think an anti 2nd amendment person debating an NRA person is going to sway them or vice versa? they both have all the facts, they just disagree. them debating will sway neither of them, but someone who hasn't bothered to look into the subject can see them debate and come to their own conclusion from it.

same with the presidential debates. the goal isn't for hillary clinton to change donald trumps mind. its for her to seem like she knows more on the subject than him, and her viewpoint to seem like the logical one. so more people agree and vote for her

or whoever is what im saying

TRY AND DEBATE IT CUCKS

It can’t change the opinions of people like you because you’re delusional to the fact you can be wrong even with supporting evidence.

You use cucks in a dumb way.

define wrong though, i wouldn't debate something i can be factually wrong in. i would never debate that the earth is flat, for example. i only engage in opinion type debates where no one is inherently correct, its about where you side on the argument.

There are very few facts in life. You used the gun debate as an example. There is nothing factual in those arguments.

the environment it's held tends to dictate how people will behave. Without the threat of social embarrassment or violence people will just say whatever With little need to think about what they are saying. Most people on here resort to being merely a charactature of a version of themselves that they can't be in wider society.

You were debating youth concussions and you were factually wrong, might I add lol.