Formal Rules Of Debate

Diamond Cross · 12-07-2006, 08:08 PM

Here is a good resource on formal debate:

LEARN TO DEBATE

On all forums I've never seen formal debate, but what everybody does is debate their own interests and nothing more. That's not what formal debate is about.

Formal debate is about learning something new and expanding one's knowledge, and sometimes even taking the opposite side of a chosewn subject. Say for example, someone argues the benefits of Martial Arts the majority of the time. They may want to choose to debate the opposite, that Martial Artsd is not benefitial and harmful. They may do so even from a religious persective, but they debated the opposite of what they usually debate to broaden their knowledge.

That's one of the things that I found interesting about debating and what got me into debating, but it's easy to fall into certain patterns that can only result in frustration because no progress towards whatever the goal is is not being made.

Anyway, the above website lists several forms of debating, only on a forum the time limitations can't really be done.

Kytro · 12-07-2006, 10:37 PM

While it is interesting from an intellectual standpoint I find that the structuring of debates does not provide for a more "correct" outcome.

Diamond Cross · 12-08-2006, 04:38 AM

What do you mean by a more "correct" outcome?

nbiggershaft · 12-12-2006, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

What do you mean by a more "correct" outcome?

Formal debate is conterproductive. It's basic premise is argue till the bitter end and take everything from a skewed perspective. Basically it emulates everything wrong with partisan politics. I 'debated' for a few years back in high school and saw what it was doing to people (especially female debators

), so I quit.

I'll let Stewart explain for me.

YouTube Video

Donkey® · 12-12-2006, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Formal debate is conterproductive. It's basic premise is argue till the bitter end and take everything from a skewed perspective. Basically it emulates everything wrong with partisan politics. I 'debated' for a few years back in high school and saw what it was doing to people (especially female debators ), so I quit.

I'll let Stewart explain for me.

Agreed. Formal debate accomplishes nothing...but neither does anything we do on here. My biggest complaint would be that people just don't care to be educated on the side they say they disagree with 99% of the time. How you can disagree with something you know nothing about i'll never understand...BTW, noodz of female debators?

Kytro · 12-12-2006, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

What do you mean by a more "correct" outcome?

I mean it does not provide for the best conclusion in all cases

Diamond Cross · 12-12-2006, 07:23 PM

What is the best outcome, and isn't that dependent upon one's personal golas?

Kytro · 12-12-2006, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

What is the best outcome, and isn't that dependent upon one's personal golas?

Even if that were the case, it still wouldn't provide what one wants at all times.

Structured debate does not determine fact hence the outcome is more a match of minds than determination of the subject matter

goldenponderbob · 12-13-2006, 11:44 AM

The premise of debating is that the better skilled debater will "win" the contest on either side of the issue, the facts, therefore, are secondary.

That's an exercise that lawyers appreciate.

A lawyer gains the respect of his peers because "he's never lost a case"

Normal people would wonder if those he defends were all innocent.

In depating parlance, therefore, lawyers are not normal people.

Last year IIllinois governor Ryan was convicted of crimes. He had great lawyers, the best, I've heard, and will never spend a day in jail. As a taxpayer of his state, I think someone ought to cough up the cost of bringing him to trial. Turns out it was all just a debating contest, and
I paid the bill!

Before I listen to any more talk about debates, I'd like my money back.