Styles of Debate

[leegao]

I'm used to doing competitive debates and there's a subtle difference that I've noticed here.

Impact.

The debates here seem more dogmatic than inspiring. For example, if we have some resolution to discuss, the first rebuttle almost always hits the least impacting parts first. IE: None destructive or only seemingly destructive points that are aimed to, I'm guessing, create distractions.

There's no Impact.

When you write a post, a topic, and support it, there are lines that are just decoration rather than constructives. Yet people always targets these specific parts. And after that claims the whole point to be invalid, while making absolutely no impact at all on the main point. This is Frustrating to watch. People needs to crystalize other people's arguments and only argue on the points that make impact, otherwise we'll stem into this endless tangent that no one seems to know why they're arguing about.

For example, one possible rebutle to this post is that not everyone is frustrated by the lack of impact... well, does that necesarily mean my point is not valid? I mean, you could use that as a subpoint in a main contention, but overall, there are no organized contentions in these rebuttles, therefore these points are almost always independent of an uniformed attack on specific parts of a post. Meaning you state this point, make no mention of the main idea, and say that their point falls...

You know, if we actually crystalize the original point, then rebut the main ideas, we'll be able to eliminate those long chains of rebuts mostly on points that are irrelevant (IE: Europe is a continent, not a country) and create clear and concise debates.

[Whilletal]

Ok lets face it. We really don't like debate. But we love a good argument simply for the sake of arguing.

[SoylentGreen]

The problem, or some might even say the advantage, is that this site isn't restricted to professional debaters.
We get a diversity here. From the totally ignorant, to the illiterate to the non english speakers the young , the old and so on.
They also have different reasons for being here. Some , like yourself seek a quality debate, others just want to throw an opinion in here and there while others have a personal cause to pursue.
For the most part it does not take long to figure out when some one is being dogmatic or inspiring. And as there is no point scoring system we are free to enter or leave a debate as we choose.
i think if we were restricted to being professional about our debates we would lose the subtle nuances of personalities that make this place interesting.
As for your guess that they are creating distractions , it might come from the fact that professional debaters also will use that ploy if there is an advantage for it. My guess is that most of us are just arguing off the top of our heads and not planning there strategy of debate.

[rez]

This is my form of debate. Let's see what you think.

Quote by: leegao I'm used to doing competitive debates and there's a subtle difference that I've noticed here.

Are you suggesting that as a whole volconvo has a certain way of debating? Like, we all follow a certain style or perhaps you are referring to certain individuals?

Impact.

Not sure what you mean by that.

The debates here seem more dogmatic than inspiring. For example, if we have some resolution to discuss, the first rebuttle almost always hits the least impacting parts first. IE: None destructive or only seemingly destructive points that are aimed to, I'm guessing, create distractions.

I'm of the opinion to deconstruct every sentence and make sure to use their own vocabulary and ideas against them.

When you write a post, a topic, and support it, there are lines that are just decoration rather than constructives. Yet people always targets these specific parts. And after that claims the whole point to be invalid, while making absolutely no impact at all on the main point. This is Frustrating to watch. People needs to crystalize other people's arguments and only argue on the points that make impact, otherwise we'll stem into this endless tangent that no one seems to know why they're arguing about.

My goal is to focus on the very first basic disagreement. Work your way from small to big. If you can't even come to a agreement with the small you won't be able to come to an understanding of the big.

Debate to me is about understanding, not who wins.

For example, one possible rebutle to this post is that not everyone is frustrated by the lack of impact... well, does that necesarily mean my point is not valid? I mean, you could use that as a subpoint in a main contention, but overall, there are no organized contentions in these rebuttles, therefore these points are almost always independent of an uniformed attack on specific parts of a post. Meaning you state this point, make no mention of the main idea, and say that their point falls...

I think the problem is that people are not writing main points within their posts. I am well versed in the evoltuion/atheism vs theism debates and most of the time I am correcting definitions and clearing up misconceptions. I am not necessarily focused on the main points as I am the little things that lead up to that point.

You know, if we actually crystalize the original point, then rebut the main ideas, we'll be able to eliminate those long chains of rebuts mostly on points that are irrelevant (IE: Europe is a continent, not a country) and create clear and concise debates.

I think that is because people treat the forums like if they were in a chat room. The opening post starts, but then once somebody responds the topic starter responds to the response and so on and so forth. I agree though, it would be better if people kept referencing the first post most of the time.