Implied rules of debate

[Kriminal99]

A competition is something where two people that have mutually exclusive goals agree to follow rules in pursuit of their goals such that the competition as a whole serves a different purpose than what would occur without those rules.

 

Examples: No fighting in a basketball game because it is more fun to watch people follow the rules to try and win.

 

We will call two people fighting for mutually exclusive goals without rules a struggle of force. Struggles of force are often considered undesirable because both sides suffer or face the risk of suffering more than if rules were in place.

 

Integrity refers to the ability of something to serve its purpose or stay true to what it is supposed to be.

 

The integrity of a competition depends on the honor of it's participants. If people break the rules of a competition then the competition no longer serves it's purpose.

 

Debate is a competition where both sides wish to get their point across to the other side. It has implied rules by virtue of the fact that a debate took place instead of a struggle of force.

 

For example yelling over an opponent in a verbal debate defeats the purpose of the debate and replaces it with a struggle of force.

 

The person who yells can be considered dishonorable because he started under the pretense of wanting a debate instead of a struggle of force but when things didn't go his way for a second he stopped following the rules.

 

Example: In wartime two leaders of opposing countries meet to discuss terms of peace. The first leader says something the second leader does not like, so the second leader yells over the first while talking. He has broken an implied rule of debate because their whole purpose of being there is to avoid using force to solve their disagreement. If they are going to yell over each other to prevent the opponent from making their point, they will just go back to fighting having wasted their time with the peace talks.

 

Any tactic used in a debate that defeats the purpose of a debate is dishonorable.

[freeztar]

Uh...ok. :shrug:

[TheBigDog]

Do you see a crossover point between debate and conversation? Must it be framed as a competition, or can it be an exhibition of both content and rhetorical flavoring of personality? Culturally rhetoric can be extremely important, and without the proper window dressings one can have their otherwise flawless arguments fall upon deaf ears.

 

Do you wish for a world where the exchange of ideas is purely done with the most primitive of facts and never does such things as comparing those who disagree with a certain line of logic as being sub neophytes?

 

Your perfect is another's pointless, and vice-versa. Knowing you are right does not always require proof. Following through in such a fashion is in itself a personal attack, no matter how obtuse.

 

Bill

[Kriminal99]

No I do not believe there are many forms of conversation that are not competitions.

 

If both people already know everything the other person does, then there is no need for a conversation to take place.

 

One tactic often used when a person breaks the implied rules of debate is to hide behind the idea that they are just joking when in fact they were still trying to influence the debate and the beliefs of others. (Sarcasm is often a tool used to do this)

 

I suppose that some conversations might take place for a different purpose between friends, but those are still competitions. For example who can say the funniest thing or something along those lines. However I feel that even when such conversations take place, it is at will and can revert to a basic debate at any time depending on what is said.

 

For example you might use a specious argument to clown on a friend in a closed enviornment, and the friend might laugh and do it back. But doing the same thing with the intent of undermining a new third person's image of your friend is a good way to lose a friend and possibly get punched in the face.

 

This follows from the general principle that analysis is not required for anything that does not harm anyone and only provides entertainment, but you do not get to tell someone else that they are over analyzing something that they obviously have an issue with.

 

There is only one moral and correct way for things to be done. One person's beliefs effect everyone around them because they do not exist in a vacuum. It effects how efficiently they do what they do and provide services to others, it effects what they vote for etc, it effects how they share resources etc etc.

[Buffy]

No I do not believe there are many forms of conversation that are not competitions.

 

And how's that workin' for ya?

 

Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love, :hyper:

Buffy

[Kriminal99]

The reason you and others like you are so frightened by aggressive behavior is because you do not understand it and so it appears random to you.

 

A lack of understanding could never be a successful foundation for limiting the amount of aggression in human interaction, and is not nearly as respectable as non-violence philosophies such as those that belong to Gandhi and actually contain some degree of substance. For the most part that line of thinking is hypocritical.

 

People who think along those lines frequently use non physical means of forcibly getting their way in a selfish manner with no regard for other people. The only difference between such a person and the common criminal is lack of physical ability or fear of physical confrontation. They hide behind the letter of the law and it's enforcers while committing immoral acts.

 

Conversation is a competition of sorts because if it was not there would never be a need to converse. Note that by this I mean a back and forth exchange and not just someone asking for information and receiving it.

 

The only line of thinking capable of limiting people's personal attachment to their ideas and therefore their aggressiveness towards people who argue against their ideas is to highlight the futility of each side behaving in this manner.

[Buffy]

The reason you and others like you are so frightened by aggressive behavior is because you do not understand it and so it appears random to you.

Well, its not fear at all really: its disgust tempered only by the realization that its caused by mental illness.

 

Sad really.

 

No machine can give the kind of stimulation, needed to remove his inner block,

Buffy

[Kriminal99]

Well, its not fear at all really: its disgust tempered only by the realization that its caused by mental illness.

 

Sad really.

 

No machine can give the kind of stimulation, needed to remove his inner block, :rolleyes:

Buffy

 

Yeah it's disgust when you are anonymously posting on the internet and fear when you are on the street and you see a tough looking guy with a tatoo or scar and you run to your car and lock your door really quick.

 

You are just one of those people who go on about politeness and other naive concepts and then gossip about people behind their back, use sarcasm and other passive aggressive tactics.

 

In short your beliefs and behavior are hypocritical.

[ughaibu]

Hey Krimminal, are you prepared to reveal your identity here?

[freeztar]

Conversation is a competition of sorts because if it was not there would never be a need to converse.

 

Competition is not necessary for conversation.

 

[Friendly uncompetitive conversation]

F: Hey Kriminal, how's it going?

K: It's going well freeztar, the sun is shining and the weather is sweet.

F: Well, that sounds good K, the weather's pretty nice over here too!

K: Awesome, what are you doing today?

F: I'm about to go get some lunch and start on my new kite design.

K: Cool, I love kites. I used to fly kites all the time with my Dad.

F: Me too.

etc...etc...etc...

[/Friendly uncompetitive conversation]

 

When I was in High School, I was on a debate team. We practiced and practiced for the big *competition*. In that formal sense, yes, debate is inherently competitive. Hence my first post in this thread.

[CraigD]

Debate is a competition where both sides wish to get their point across to the other side.

This definition is, I think, unconventional to the point of being irreparably flawed.

 

A conventional definition of debate is one such as found in the wikipedia article “debate”:

Debate… is a formal method of interactive and position representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, since it includes persuasion which appeals to the emotional responses of an audience, and rules enabling people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact.

The implication of this definition is that the purpose of debate is to influence an audience, which may consist of a large lay audience (eg: the ongoing US Presidential primary election debates), a small panel of judges (eg: a typical academic debate), or a single judge (eg: a teacher judging a classroom debate). It’s not required, expected, or ordinary that the debaters influence one another, or even that a debater personally believe the position he or she is arguing. All that is required is an agreed upon process for determining the debate’s winner – in the case of a political candidates’ debate, the results of an election, in a judged debate, the decision of the judge or vote of the judges.

 

By this definition, the purpose of a debate is to determine a winner among 2 or more competing debaters.

 

The defining characteristic of the rules of debate of any form, it is my assertion, is that they be know by and consented to by the debaters. As stated in the wikipedia article, other rules are secondary – one may actually break rules in a debate in order to win it, though excessive rule breaking is likely to have the opposite effect, essentially at the whim of the judge(s)

Any tactic used in a debate that defeats the purpose of a debate is dishonorable.

Although convincing the judges in a debate that you personally or your position in principle is honorable, or your opponent or his position dishonorable, may be a winning tactic, honor is, I assert, not of central significance in, nor synonymous with, debate.

[Thunderbird]

This definition is, I think, unconventional to the point of being irreparably flawed.

 

A conventional definition of debate is one such as found in the wikipedia article “debate”:

Debate… is a formal method of interactive and position representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, since it includes persuasion which appeals to the emotional responses of an audience, and rules enabling people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact.

The implication of this definition is that the purpose of debate is to influence an audience, which may consist of a large lay audience (eg: the ongoing US Presidential primary election debates), a small panel of judges (eg: a typical academic debate), or a single judge (eg: a teacher judging a classroom debate). It’s not required, expected, or ordinary that the debaters influence one another, or even that a debater personally believe the position he or she is arguing. All that is required is an agreed upon process for determining the debate’s winner – in the case of a political candidates’ debate, the results of an election, in a judged debate, the decision of the judge or vote of the judges.

 

By this definition, the purpose of a debate is to determine a winner among 2 or more competing debaters.

 

The defining characteristic of the rules of debate of any form, it is my assertion, is that they be know by and consented to by the debaters. As stated in the wikipedia article, other rules are secondary – one may actually break rules in a debate in order to win it, though excessive rule breaking is likely to have the opposite effect, essentially at the whim of the judge(s)Although convincing the judges in a debate that you personally or your position in principle is honorable, or your opponent or his position dishonorable, may be a winning tactic, honor is, I assert, not of central significance in, nor synonymous with, debate.

 

 

Sound like fun ; wish we could do that here. :confused:

[Kriminal99]

Competition is not necessary for conversation.

 

[Friendly uncompetitive conversation]

F: Hey Kriminal, how's it going?

K: It's going well freeztar, the sun is shining and the weather is sweet.

F: Well, that sounds good K, the weather's pretty nice over here too!

K: Awesome, what are you doing today?

F: I'm about to go get some lunch and start on my new kite design.

K: Cool, I love kites. I used to fly kites all the time with my Dad.

F: Me too.

etc...etc...etc...

[/Friendly uncompetitive conversation]

 

When I was in High School, I was on a debate team. We practiced and practiced for the big *competition*. In that formal sense, yes, debate is inherently competitive. Hence my first post in this thread.

 

I see 2 parts of that conversation and one of them is competition like. The first part is just a person asking and receiving information which I said wasn't a competition but by itself isn't much of a conversation either.

 

But when the conversation comes to "Cool, I love kites. I used to fly kites all the time with my Dad." that part I was framing as a competition because the people are competing to say something interesting. Competitions are not necessarily negative, they can compete just with the purpose being to make the conversation interesting.

 

But another thing about framing conversations this way: If no one is feeling competitive in a debate then no one is going to complain about the rules being broken. If someone feels like someone else made a rule breaking comment then it is automatically implied that the people are behaving competitively.

 

You cannot allow someone to break the rules with a competitive intention under the guise of having a "friendly conversation". If it is a friendly conversation, no one would bring up the rules to begin with. You can't force the label "friendly conversation" when the other person doesn't feel that way after your comments, this opens the door for passive aggressive behavior and comments.

[Kriminal99]

This definition is, I think, unconventional to the point of being irreparably flawed.

 

A conventional definition of debate is one such as found in the wikipedia article “debate”:

Debate… is a formal method of interactive and position representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, since it includes persuasion which appeals to the emotional responses of an audience, and rules enabling people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact.

The implication of this definition is that the purpose of debate is to influence an audience, which may consist of a large lay audience (eg: the ongoing US Presidential primary election debates), a small panel of judges (eg: a typical academic debate), or a single judge (eg: a teacher judging a classroom debate). It’s not required, expected, or ordinary that the debaters influence one another, or even that a debater personally believe the position he or she is arguing. All that is required is an agreed upon process for determining the debate’s winner – in the case of a political candidates’ debate, the results of an election, in a judged debate, the decision of the judge or vote of the judges.

 

By this definition, the purpose of a debate is to determine a winner among 2 or more competing debaters.

 

The defining characteristic of the rules of debate of any form, it is my assertion, is that they be know by and consented to by the debaters. As stated in the wikipedia article, other rules are secondary – one may actually break rules in a debate in order to win it, though excessive rule breaking is likely to have the opposite effect, essentially at the whim of the judge(s)Although convincing the judges in a debate that you personally or your position in principle is honorable, or your opponent or his position dishonorable, may be a winning tactic, honor is, I assert, not of central significance in, nor synonymous with, debate.

 

I don't really don't take much information from wikipedia seriously since anyone can edit it and the posted information there has no more legitimacy than anyone else's definition of debate.

 

A real dictionary definition of debate would have many different meanings listed and that type of formal college debate like college debate teams use might be one of them but I expect the number one definition would be something like:

 

a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints

 

Most dictionary definitions are accurate enough to be useful, but in fact there is a third type of definition that has ultimate legitimacy for many reasons and that is what context does the concept arise from? Debate is used to describe, as the dictionary says, any type of discussion involving opposing viewpoints more frequently and before it was ever used to describe the debate team situation.

 

A college debate team debate is really quite useless for many of the reasons (other than as some kind of sport) outlined in your description of it namely that appeal to emotion runs rampant and people argue for things they do not even believe in. I have no interest in that type of debate and it is quite irrelevant to this discussion.

[Buffy]

Yeah it's disgust when you are anonymously posting on the internet and fear when you are on the street and you see a tough looking guy with a tatoo or scar and you run to your car and lock your door really quick.

Actually some of my best friends are bikers, and although I could do some damage to them, its much more productive to sweet talk them.

 

Its the psychotic ones that are a bit of a challenge though, but even then, it is good to show no fear.

 

So I take it that you find it hard to deal with people who respond to your aggression with aggression? And when you're losing the debate, you feel justified in resorting to physical violence?

You are just one of those people who go on about politeness and other naive concepts and then gossip about people behind their back, use sarcasm and other passive aggressive tactics.

Actually, that was hardly passive! Not comfortable when the shoe is on the other foot, huh?

 

Its certainly fascinating that you seem to be so wrapped up in this notion that everyone is just as hostile and aggressive as you are, and thus endlessly try to justify bashing people in the face as your standard method of interaction.

 

Do you really wonder why people react so negatively to you?

 

A vitreous plane upon which to display a fleeting show for man's disillusion given, :)

Buffy

[CraigD]

I don't really don't take much information from wikipedia seriously since anyone can edit it …

Because wikipedia and other wikis allow any interested person to edit most articles, I would argue that it is a better indication of the consensus of many people than is an article written by a single person. In addition, despite this open policy, wikipedia is monitored and maintained, not only by privileged staff, but by all of its readers. Multiple independent analyses of wikipedia has found it only slightly lower in accuracy, though substantially lower in quality of prose and ease of reading (see the wikipedia article “Accuracy of Wikipedia” – or, better, the articles referenced by it). Nonetheless, readers should be aware of the vulnerabilities of wikis, and make extensive use of their history, authorship sourcing, and “talk” features to more fully understand the articles they read.

… and the posted information there has no more legitimacy than anyone else's definition of debate.

That a non-obscure article challenged by only a few of its millions of visitors, all of whom are able, with minimal effort, to challenge it, is a less legitimate source of a consensus definition of its subject that “anyone else’s” definition is not, I believe, true, under any usual consensus definition of the term “legitimacy”.

A real dictionary definition of debate would have many different meanings listed and that type of formal college debate like college debate teams use might be one of them but I expect the number one definition would be something like:

 

a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints

I agree. However, rather than speak hypothetically (“would”), we can easily consult a real, professionally edited dictionary for the list of different meaning Kriminal99 describes. The dictionary.com result for “debate” gives

-noun

1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.

2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.

3. deliberation; consideration.

4. Archaic. strife; contention.

With the exception of the last, archaic definition, these definitions appear well-represented in the wikipedia article, and my post.

 

When considering word use, an etymological perspective is usually informative. Debate, from de = down, completely + batre = beat, hit, means, “a complete beat-down”.

 

… in fact there is a third type of definition that has ultimate legitimacy for many reasons and that is what context does the concept arise from? Debate is used to describe, as the dictionary says, any type of discussion involving opposing viewpoints more frequently and before it was ever used to describe the debate team situation.

Can you support this claim? :)

 

Although I have no history of common usage of the word, from its etymology, I suspect that it’s oldest use of the word “debate” was to describe physical fighting, distinct from the similar word combat (from com = with + batre = beat, hit) in that one of the combatants must “go down”. This supports my assertion that the defining characteristic of debate is having a winner, rather than Kriminal99’s assertions that

Debate is a competition where both sides wish to get their point across to the other side.

and

It has implied rules by virtue of the fact that a debate took place instead of a struggle of force.

Although only rarely formally sanctioned (eg: by a court or other authority) in modern western society, in keeping with the term’s etymological definition, physical combat in which a clear winner is decided is a form of debate. To this day, many people, in many states, sometimes legally, sometimes illegally, use physical combat of many kinds to settle differences in opinion, the critical characteristic of such fights being that, to be effective in settling the dispute, someone must win.

 

In light of this interpretation, the sentence “Alice and Bob debated one another” makes little sense, being analogous to “Alice and Bob laid a beat-down upon one another”. Rather, more sensible would be “Alice debated Bob” (Alice won) or “Alice was debated by Bob” (Alice lost).

[Eclogite]

No I do not believe there are many forms of conversation that are not competitions.

This is absolutely, irrevocably, undeniably, 100% true: you do not believe there are many forms of conversation that are not competitions. Fortunately, not everyone shares this view.