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

[Inno]

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?

[Mediocrity]

Not on the internet

[Candy]

Originally Posted by Innovator

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?

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..

[Exis]

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

[Geno]

Sexual genders. Obv

[Suthaveli]

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.

[~RustyGunZ~]

Originally Posted by Suthaveli

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.

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.

[Suthaveli]

Originally Posted by Knucklehead

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.

[Geno]

I think suth just closed thread.

[Amen]

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.

[boof]

i do it a lot on FB

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

[uh-oh]

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.

[~RustyGunZ~]

Originally Posted by uh-oh

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.

[Flow]

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.

[uh-oh]

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

[~RustyGunZ~]

Originally Posted by uh-oh

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.

[uh-oh]

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.

[~RustyGunZ~]

Originally Posted by uh-oh

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.

[uh-oh]

Originally Posted by Knucklehead

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

there are facts used to dispute each side. statistics etc, but you are basically arguing my point. you can't debate something that is a fact of life. the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. you can't debate that. you can only debate opinion, and only cite facts that support your opinion.

like amen and his youth football nonsense he's bringing back up. the only time i was saying its impossible for a kid in youth football to get a concussion was when it turned to trolling because you guys weren't paying attention to what i was saying.

which is it is less likely for the youth to get a concussion because of the mass and speed of them, it creates smaller collisions

i think it was brought up again that they are smaller/weaker so they are more susceptible

but the debate lies in there, whether you think their fragility outweighs the strength of the impacts. im assuming you guys think that since they're frail little kids the little impacts they take leave them more susceptible to a concussion than a bigger kid/adult athlete who is actually hitting harder

so the countless times i brought up it being more dangerous the higher levels it goes, was ignored because you guys interpreted that its impossible for a kid to get a concussion. and my trolling saying literally that, after being annoyed at my overall point being ignored didn't help matters. which was its much safer for youth kids to collide in regards to concussions than high school and up.

[~RustyGunZ~]

Originally Posted by uh-oh

there are facts used to dispute each side. statistics etc, but you are basically arguing my point. you can't debate something that is a fact of life. the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. you can't debate that. you can only debate opinion, and only cite facts that support your opinion.

like amen and his youth football nonsense he's bringing back up. the only time i was saying its impossible for a kid in youth football to get a concussion was when it turned to trolling because you guys weren't paying attention to what i was saying.

which is it is less likely for the youth to get a concussion because of the mass and speed of them, it creates smaller collisions

i think it was brought up again that they are smaller/weaker so they are more susceptible

but the debate lies in there, whether you think their fragility outweighs the strength of the impacts. im assuming you guys think that since they're frail little kids the little impacts they take leave them more susceptible to a concussion than a bigger kid/adult athlete who is actually hitting harder

so the countless times i brought up it being more dangerous the higher levels it goes, was ignored because you guys interpreted that its impossible for a kid to get a concussion. and my trolling saying literally that, after being annoyed at my overall point being ignored didn't help matters. which was its much safer for youth kids to collide in regards to concussions than high school and up.

That was your opinion that was not based on facts or evidence. You seem to understand what a fact is in your first bit and then show you don’t in the next. You didn’t show us any evidence your opinion was correct. Everyone but you disagreed with it. Those are situations where you should think about backing up your claims and realizing they’re nonsense when you can’t. Your argument ignores physics and medical research but was okay in your mind because you live in potatoe country so youre a first hand expert.

Debates become nonsense arguments when people think their opinions based on nothing are facts. That whole thread was a perfect example.