is true debate really possible??

[WoundedDeep]

As long as you feel that your intuition can´t fool you, to the point that you know people´s intentions and motives better than they do themselves, there´s hardly a way to start convincing you otherwise. Your preconceptions are safely sheltered.

That is possible. But regardless, if a person tells you they are not happy with your attitude, and you continue in it, then clearly they have a reason to think you are here to cause trouble. I usually start out with telling them they are in denial, or using circular arguments, or being stubborn, or evading a point. When they persist in it, is it not right that I should discontinue the discussion and point out their disrespect? (so that they will be ashamed)

Well, I perceive your attitude as extremely negative here. That doesn´t mean I ascribe sinister motives to you.
Yes, oftentimes previous negative encounters prompt people into a negative approach - but this goes for everyone else, as well, not only for you.

I don't like to do it either. But like I described above, more than once have such people come and started an endless cycle to create frustration, and forcing me to repeat myself over and over with a point I have long addressed. And despite my objections to that way of discussing things, they continue doing it.

No, I just saw you admitting that shaming people is one of your intentions. And from what I know about psychology, this is being counterproductive (assuming that your overall goal here is a more empathic style of conversation).

I don't shame people the way normal people view "shaming" as. More often than not, I simply point out with blunt words exactly what they are doing in a discussion, how it defeats the discussion and the fact I will no longer continue.

 

[quatona]

That is possible. But regardless, if a person tells you they are not happy with your attitude, and you continue in it, then clearly they have a reason to think you are here to cause trouble. I usually start out with telling them they are in denial, or using circular arguments, or being stubborn, or evading a point. When they persist in it, is it not right that I should discontinue the discussion and point out their disrespect? (so that they will be ashamed)



I don't like to do it either. But like I described above, more than once have such people come and started an endless cycle to create frustration, and forcing me to repeat myself over and over with a point I have long addressed. And despite my objections to that way of discussing things, they continue doing it.



I don't shame people the way normal people view "shaming" as. More often than not, I simply point out with blunt words exactly what they are doing in a discussion, how it defeats the discussion and the fact I will no longer continue.

Well, the way you go about things doesn´t seem to help reducing your frustration. That is, imo, a good reason to reconsider it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If I am wrong, then point it out. I am not immune to error. The reason why I react certain way to certain people is because I have already bore with their negative attitude for a good while. You don't see me going around shaming everyone do you?

I don't see you shaming anyone, despite your best efforts.

 

[Loudmouth]

Indeed, praise Lord Jesus for considering us worthy of receiving the Gospel. I am pretty blunt in pointing out the attitude of those people, in hope that they will be ashamed and will repent and start believing in Jesus. But it is God who works on people's hearts, therefore all glory and credit to Him alone.

The days are dark, we need to keep our eyes on the Lord as the world turns away from God more each second. I have confidence that given all the current signs in the world, our redemption is near.

The fact that you have to shame people instead of presenting evidence is one of the stumbling blocks to constructive discussions.

 

[WoundedDeep]

The fact that you have to shame people instead of presenting evidence is one of the stumbling blocks to constructive discussions.

When I have to go to that extent, the discussion had long become non-constructive.

 

[Loudmouth]

When I have to go to that extent, the discussion had long become non-constructive.

Have you tried using evidence?

 

[agua]

The fact that you have to shame people instead of presenting evidence is one of the stumbling blocks to constructive discussions.

To be clear the process of conducting yourself properly is what Yahweh says will open a person who is not conducting themselves properly ( being abusive or using personal attacks etc ) to feeling ashamed. ie. the shame may be felt by the offender because of the good conduct of the offended.

Of course this isn't the result of every occurance of inappropriate behaviour and relies on the offender being contrite.

 

[dlamberth]

And that has happened so long ago that it just isn't possible for you to find an example?

She has been on CF for only 4 months or so.

.

 

[kristina411]

or is it mainly just point scoring?

In this thread you have everything you need to know about bad debating. And even more so, everything you need to know about one ended conversations.

And any responses to this would only be furthering my point.

 

[Davian]

To be clear the process of conducting yourself properly is what Yahweh says

To be clear, the bible says.

will open a person who is not conducting themselves properly ( being abusive or using personal attacks etc ) to feeling ashamed. ie. the shame may be felt by the offender because of the good conduct of the offended.

Of course this isn't the result of every occurance of inappropriate behaviour and relies on the offender being contrite.

Have we not chosen to have these discussions in a forum that states as its purpose "Critical examination of the rational grounds of our most fundamental beliefs and logical analysis of the basic concepts employed in the expression of such beliefs"?

If the "offended" that you refer to consistently equate any critical examination of their beliefs with a personal attack, perhaps it is their conduct that need change, in accordance to the purpose of this forum.

 

[agua]

To be clear, the bible says.

Yes correct. It's the scriptures that WoundedDeep and I were addressing.

Have we not chosen to have these discussions in a forum that states as its purpose "Critical examination of the rational grounds of our most fundamental beliefs and logical analysis of the basic concepts employed in the expression of such beliefs"?

If the "offended" that you refer to consistently equate any critical examination of their beliefs with a personal attack, perhaps it is their conduct that need change, in accordance to the purpose of this forum.

I think we have a very different idea of the definition, and requirements, of critical examination. We don't need to resort to ad hominam or any other personal attacks to conduct critical examination of any subject. Many people think critisism implies/requires insult, but it doesn't.

Maybe you and I should conduct a one on one debate on a subject and see how, or if, we differ in our approach.

 

[Davian]

...

I think we have a very different idea of the definition, and requirements, of critical examination. We don't need to resort to ad hominam or any other personal attacks to conduct critical examination of any subject. Many people think critisism implies/requires insult, but it doesn't.

I completely agree. What I had in mind were instances where requests to substantiate opinion with science were perceived as insults, as happened here.

 

[Eudaimonist]

She has been on CF for only 4 months or so.

.

The shorter the time she has been here, the easier it should be for her to find the examples that she remembers.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[agua]

I completely agree. What I had in mind were instances where requests to substantiate opinion with science were perceived as insults, as happened here.

Are you asking me to assess if this discussion between you and WoundedDeep incurred person attacks or intentionally aggravating debate tactics ? I'll need to read the whole discussion. After reading a few posts prior to the one linked I have the opinion you both hadn't defined, or mutually understood what you required as answer to particular questions. ( I did see some ad hominem from WoundedDeep and sarcasm from both )
As far as if asking for scientific evidence in citations is an insult; no it isn't.

 

[Inkfingers]

is true debate really possible, or is it mainly just point scoring?

There is cheap debate; which is just point-scoring where you try to knock hole in arguments for the applause or support of a gullible audience.

There is also mature debate; which needs the participants and audience to be honest and well informed, and have as their purpose the seeking of truth rather than the pushing of emotive biases.

The vast majority of the internet and media is the former.

The latter is a rare exception to be treasured when it occurs.

 

[thepromiseofgrace]

There is cheap debate; which is just point-scoring where you try to knock hole in arguments for the applause or support of a gullible audience.

There is also mature debate; which needs the participants and audience to be honest and well informed, and have as their purpose the seeking of truth rather than the pushing of emotive biases.

The vast majority of the internet and media is the former.

The latter is a rare exception to be treasured when it occurs.

I agree.

 

[quatona]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y