What qualifies one to be able to engage in debate on a topic? Or what provides a basis for being able to debate.
A debate - as opposed to a discussion - is about winning an argument. So in my observation the most important quality required is to know all the dirty tricks and the willingness to use them.What qualifies one to be able to engage in debate on a topic? Or what provides a basis for being able to debate.
A debate - as opposed to a discussion - is about winning an argument. So in my observation the most important quality required is to know all the dirty tricks and the willingness to use them.
Rarely.Have you seen any debates were this isn't the case?
The ability to speak and motivated reasoning.
Then we don't anything to debate, do we?I agree with you there
Mandibular therapy.Do you mean having something (like a project) to make an argument for, a concrete matter that is important to the debater, rather than just debating for the sake of displaying ones debating prowess.
Rarely.
About as often as I have seen badminton matches where one or both of the players didn´t display any real determination to win the match.
It´s just not the purpose. A debate is, by definition, competitive. A discussion is not - in the best case it is cooperative. That´s why I don´t participate in debates, btw.
Then we don't anything to debate, do we?
It´s like expecting boxers to avoid hurting each other.I understood the competitive aspect. What I was asking was could one debate competitively without using dirty tricks, have an honest debate? Debates should proceed by reasoned well made arguments , not tricks. But I agree they often do employ a lot of rhetorical ploys.
It´s like expecting boxers to avoid hurting each other.
If you just want to consider the validity of certain arguments you don´t need to declare and have a debate. You simply sit down and have a conversation.
What qualifies one to be able to engage in debate on a topic? Or what provides a basis for being able to debate.
I prefer: The Bible says it, that settles it.Obviously some familiarity with the subject matter is helpful, but sometimes not even that is necessary. What is needed to win a debate is to demonstrate that the opponent's argument is unsound, or at least invalid.
An invalid argument is one in which the conclusion does not necessarily proceed from the premises. For example, recently on CF someone argued that the Christian belief in the Trinity evolved from pagan beliefs (conclusion), because numerous pagan sects before and after Christ believed in triads (premise). While the premise may be true, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise. One doesn't need to know anything about the history of Christianity or paganism to demonstrate this.
An unsound argument is an argument which is invalid and/or in which its premises are true. Recently, again on CF, for example, someone argued that the Christian belief in the Trinity was politically motivated (conclusion), because it was imposed on the bishops attending a certain Council in 425 AD by the Emperor Constantine (premise). The argument might be valid, but the premise is false, since there is no record of such a Council having been held by Constantine in 425 (actually, the arguer made a simple mistake - he meant 325 AD, not 425 AD, but I left it to him to make the correction rather than wasting energy examining the rest of the argument).
There is a really good book on all this - out of the UK, in fact - called The Logic of Real Arguments. He demonstrates how one can disprove several very complicated arguments with no knowledge whatsoever of the underlying subject matter.
I prefer: The Bible says it, that settles it.
I prefer: The Bible says it, that settles it.
The universe being created in six days.Can you give an example of a conclusion that you would argue is supported by the Bible?