An enlightening chat

Pinkie: Oh come on. I'm not that bad a person.

admin: Haha, but sometimes you're rude.

admin: I couldn't disagree with most of what you mentioned. I agree that the more higher level of competition raises one's skills.

I was going to say what I disagreed with but I don't want to be a contrarian to disagree with one or two sentences you made.

ADreamOfLiberty: "It's purpose is to seek truth, not accommodate some paltry sense of victory or sway opinion by any means."

I have to disagree strongly with this here. I know mine is a minority opinion, but I view debate as nothing more than sport, with the aim to convince voters. Voters will be swayed by things they believe are true, but debating is far more than just making true statements.

admin: Then it is a sport I would probably never engage in. I wouldn't play football if the goal was to make the crowd cheer instead of score goals. If the only reason to draw a picture is to have people say they like it I wouldn't do it.

All such things are secondary gratification.

If debate is the sport, what do you call a process of social reasoning by which arguments are exchanged to arrive at the truest knowledge possible for a group of people at a certain time?

admin: Hear, Hear! You are not the only one who believes debating is for sport. That is why I enjoy arguing different sides of the issue.

People who think it is more than a sport probably think of it as arguing something they truly believe in. It would seem these people would never be highly skilled debaters because they lack the ability to argue the other side of an issue.

Tophatdoc: It seems such people have a different definition of skilled debate entirely.

ADreamOfLiberty: Not per say but I will try to give a more detailed response this time for clarity.

It would seem that people who believe debating is more than sport are unfamiliar with formal debating with rules and debating often. I think Larz has done formal debates at the high school level and college level. I have done formal debating at the high school level("Think Tank") and college level(debate team, mock legislature) as well. In such formal debates, one defends and opposes issues one may not be familiar with or agree with. Therefore, debating skills are thoroughly improved since one is prevented from becoming egotistical in formal debating. One learns to debate any side of an issue.

Versus here online or in other public forums, where informal debating takes place, many people defend issues they believe in. Therefore, their skills and knowledge are limited to what they believe in. I don't take this stance of debating issues I believe in because I debate issues that I don't agree with in order to improve my skills in debating, our current debate is an example of this because I do believe in Free Trade.

Tophatdoc: "Therefore, debating skills are thoroughly improved since one is prevented from becoming egotistical in formal debating"

Ego is an absolute barrier to debating skills? What are debating skills?

"Therefore, their skills and knowledge are limited to what they believe in."

What does it mean to have your skills limited to what you believe in? Is the knowledge you refer to more than familiarity with the beliefs of others?

ADreamOfLiberty: "Ego is an absolute barrier to debating skills? What are debating skills?"

It doesn't have to be an absolute barrier to debating skills. I was referring to egotistical in the sense that Plato uses. To paraphrase some of Plato's sentiments, one should be cautious about doing things one enjoys too much. Egotism will hinder us if we enjoy what we are doing too much because we will focus on pleasure rather than improving skills.

I would say debating skills would include: the ability to persuade, the ability to speak clearly, the ability to listen, the ability to think, and the ability to frame the argument. I may have forgotten a few skills but these are the primary one I think of immediately. The most important are "the ability to think" and "the ability to frame the argument."

The ability to think suggests that one is thinking and not feeling. Most people I have met fail to understand when they are expressing their feelings, they are not thinking because thinking and feeling utilize different parts of the brain. For example, when a high school student fails, he may angrily say to his math teacher "I don't like math!" A more appropriate example would be how someone hears something they don't like; they may use terms like "a$$hole," "bigot," dip$hit," "dummy," "idiot," "racist," and "sexist." Both examples show how people are feeling rather than thinking because it is dismissive. An example of someone thinking would be a high school student who failed his math test and he goes back to redo the problems correctly. Another example would be when someone hears something they dislike, they ask "what made you think that?"

"What does it mean to have your skills limited to what you believe in?"

It is a matter of human nature. Are you prepared for what you haven't seen, haven't heard of, and are unfamiliar with? I don't think I could ask you to explain Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" unless you are familiar with it. You are limited to the knowledge you possess and nothing more. The more you know, the more knowledge you can use as you please.

"Is the knowledge you refer to more than familiarity with the beliefs of others?"

Yes, it is more than just familiarity with the beliefs of others. For example, I used to be a democratic socialist, therefore it is easier to understand the reasoning of socialists how they arrive at their conclusions. I understand their beliefs and their reasoning to arrive at said beliefs. Versus someone who was a left liberal for their entire lives and never read a book by a socialist. Instead lets say this left liberal read books about socialists by liberals. It would be difficult for the left liberal to persuade a socialist to their position because they are unfamiliar with the socialist's reasoning and how they arrived at their conclusions. It would be far too easy for me to persuade the socialist since I understand their reasoning and how they arrive at their conclusions.

This ability is one of the reasons why many people I encounter automatically assume I agree with them when in fact I don't. I understand their reasoning, therefore they are easier to persuade.

Tophatdoc: If this was a face to face encounter this conversation would of been over because I could of been clear and questions would of been asked fatser. Too much effort for so little reward. One of the many things I dislike about the Internet. Oh well.

Tophatdoc: "Egotism will hinder us if we enjoy what we are doing too much because we will focus on pleasure rather than improving skills."

... how did we get from arguing for what one believes in to deriving pleasure from debating?

"A more appropriate example would be how someone hears something they don't like; they may use terms like "a$$hole," "bigot," dip$hit," "dummy," "idiot," "racist," and "sexist." Both examples show how people are feeling rather than thinking because it is dismissive."

Are you saying it's impossible to think, and the conclusion of that thought is that something ought to be dismissed? Is there anything else to say to "I hate blacks, and I don't care if it's rational" but "racist" ?

Sure they are unjustified, they admit as much.

" You are limited to the knowledge you possess and nothing more. The more you know, the more knowledge you can use as you please."

So in context limited skills = limited knowledge, moving on:

"Yes, it is more than just familiarity with the beliefs of others. ...."

So it is knowledge of their beliefs and the reasoning they commonly use?

ADreamOfLiberty: "... how did we get from arguing for what one believes in to deriving pleasure from debating?"

I am not referring to physical pleasure. I am referring to the pleasure one takes from discussing things they enjoy discussing.

"Are you saying it's impossible to think, and the conclusion of that thought is that something ought to be dismissed?"

As I said thinking and feeling utilize different parts of the brain. I am not referring to the feeling as in the physical sense in this case, the expressing of one's emotions would be a better association to feeling in this case. When you are thinking, it is best to think of it as putting a puzzle together or finding directions to store. Versus when you are feeling you put down the puzzle or put away directions simply because you don't like it. You think about where you going to go throughout the day otherwise you are not going to get there LOL. But you also feel as well thorough out the day when you decide who you wish to talk and what you plan to eat. Keep in mind, I am simplifying the functions of the endocrine and nervous systems to prevent from confusing you.

"Is there anything else to say to "I hate blacks, and I don't care if it's rational" but "racist" ?"

Of course there is a better response. It depends on what you are intending to do when conversing with that person. Are you trying to infuriate them, shame them, or perhaps persuade them? If, I am trying to antagonize them I prefer to remind people who they are not. My favorite retort when I hear something like that is: "And...why should I care who you like and dislike because you don't pay my bills?" If you are trying to persuade them, it is better to say something like "why are blacks so important to you?" They must be somewhat important to them if they are discussing them.Most people from what I observed are not prepared for questions like that because they are expecting a different response.

"Sure they are unjustified, they admit as much."

It is easier for these characters to think that way because they have a view of the world that fits their love of the familiar. This is why I detest peasant values.

"So it is knowledge of their beliefs and the reasoning they commonly use?"

Yes, sort of. But keep in mind just because a group of people share the same beliefs does not mean they share the same reasoning always.

Tophatdoc: "I am not referring to physical pleasure. I am referring to the pleasure one takes from discussing things they enjoy discussing."

They can find discussion important and necessary without enjoying it.

"Are you trying to infuriate them, shame them, or perhaps persuade them?"

Who says it's a conversation? Just one comment and one comment on the comment is not a conversation. What if the goal is to speak the truth?

"Most people from what I observed are not prepared for questions like that because they are expecting a different response."

Most people who say bigoted or racist things aren't prepared to support their statements at all, and whether you catch them off guard or not is not going to change that.

"Yes, sort of. But keep in mind just because a group of people share the same beliefs does not mean they share the same reasoning always."

I have learned much about the reasoning of people I disagree with by debating online, I have never felt the need to play devils advocate (even though I have). What would I possibly gain from it?

I do not doubt my ability to copy arguments I've seen others make, or even give them a novel twist. If I do not agree with them in the end, that means I think they are doomed to fail if only someone would find their flaw. Why then would I play what seems to be a mind-game with people. Smirking while wondering if they will find the answer I already know.

This is what is supposed to expand my skill? How?

ADreamOfLiberty: "Who says it's a conversation? Just one comment and one comment on the comment is not a conversation. What if the goal is to speak the truth?"

Two comments are not enough to make a conversation. It is not enough for chit chat far as I am concerned. If the goal is to speak the truth, then one only needs to state. That does not mean it will be accepted.

"Most people who say bigoted or racist things aren't prepared to support their statements at all, and whether you catch them off guard or not is not going to change that."

Possibly.

"I have learned much about the reasoning of people I disagree with by debating online, I have never felt the need to play devils advocate (even though I have). What would I possibly gain from it?"

As I told admin before, I am skeptical of online debating for a variety of reasons, most notably miscommunication, time consuming, and lack of responsiveness. I am not even sure if people become better debaters via online debating. I couldn't possibly comment on the gains from online debating.

"This is what is supposed to expand my skill? How?"

I am not sure if skills can be gained or improved via online debating. I would assume one's knowledge improves but I am not so sure about skills.

Tophatdoc: Come now Tophatdoc you're straying from the topic.

You said "People who think it is more than a sport probably think of it as arguing something they truly believe in. It would seem these people would never be highly skilled debaters because they lack the ability to argue the other side of an issue."

I think of debate as arguing something I truly believe in (or at least that is when it is most important). Why would I never be a highly skilled debater?

Why do I lack the ability to argue the other side of an issue? Isn't it true that if I know there are no undefeated arguments the fault is not mine but the falsehood of the proposition?

ADreamOfLiberty: Honestly speaking, you should just message me in the chat so this could be faster.

I would suggest going back to look at my first comment in this thread which explains some of what you are asking clearly. I couldn't possibly comment on your debate skills because this is online debating. I don't accept online debating as an adequate replacement for formal debates.

I personally have never met a person that debated only what they believed in that was good at debating. For example, I know people who treat debating as a sport who would annihilate people who are arguing for ideological reasons. Why? Debaters who treat debate as a sport are trained to debate the most simple of topics like the appropriate way to tie a tie to the most complex topics like the existence of extraterrestrials. Many of these people feel that online debating is not representative of any real debate skills. Ask admin, I am more than sure he has received hate mail verifying the contempt for online debating. I can't compliment or address someone's debating skills either because I reject the idea that online debating is an adequate measurement of debating skills; this includes video debates as well.

My first comment in this thread:
"I do see quite a bit of problems that coincide with online debating. Many people that win at online debating, would never be a good debater in the real world."

Tophatdoc: This is the real world. We are real people. These are real words, real arguments. I can't imagine anything relevant being impossible here.

Tophatdoc: "Ask admin, I am more than sure he has received hate mail verifying the contempt for online debating. I can't compliment or address someone's debating skills either because I reject the idea that online debating is an adequate measurement of debating skills; this includes video debates as well."

I can verify this, but disagree with your second statement because "debating skills" is code for persuasion, and online persuasion is just another form of that. Moving forward I think virtual persuasion will become more and more important. What's more, many skills do cross over. Constructing an argument is an example. I would say that if online debating is an inadequate measure, then offline debating is too.