Frogboy Frogboy

Debates and skinning

Debates and skinning

I'm curious as to how people in this community feel about debating. Some people I know simply don't like to get into disagreements or "constructive arguments" (aka debates). Other people (like myself) love to debate (as you've no doubt seen over the years).

In my off hours, I'll visit political, history, and technology sites purely to debate with other people who also like to debate. It's a great way to sharpen the mind's thought process and think through an idea or an opinion because you get in the habit of having to look at an issue from multiple sides which can save you grief later on.

Because I visit so many different "communities" (I'm very active in the game developer community for instance as well as several political discussion communities) it's easy to see general differences in how people act and feel and argue when they feel passionate about something.

It seems to me that most people in the skinning community are generally not into debating. Which is of course not bad at all. The only downside I've seen is the number of people who want to make assertions based on emotion or "gut feeling" but are disclined to have to back up that assertion with evidence or reasoning. It usually comes back to either "Well that's just how I feel" or it'll turn into a flame war.

I think sometimes one of the reasons why some people will see my posts on some site and consider me "combative" is because when I disagree with something, I try to get the person I disagree to back up their assertions.

Example:

"Program X sucks, it's just really slow and buggy."

If I disagree, I'll respond with:

"That hasn't been the case in my experience. What version did you run? What hardware? How was it buggy?"

In over 90% of the cases, I can never get a response. The user typically goes into "Well that's just my opinion, aren't I free to have opinions?" which is known in debate circles as a "strawman argument" (i.e. trying to redirect the debate into a different topic -- I wasn't implying he didn't have a right to an opinion, but merely to explain where his opinion derived from.

One thing about techies is that there is something unusual about them compared to other people. They have an unusually high desire to demonstrate knowledge -- even when they really don't have any knowledge. Hence the situation you see above. Because typically when I do get real answers about why they think program X sucks it's "I used version 1.2 3 years ago and it crashed on my Windows 95 box so I'm going to assume it hasn't changed in 3 years and how it would run on my new Windows XP machine..."

This is particular prevalent in IRC where those most inclined to behave in this way 15 to 21 year olds, will usually confuse ignorant criticism for providing knowledge (everything "sucks" to these 15 to 21 year old IRC people even if they're only vaguely familiar with it - sometimes it only requires hearing someone else who barely knows it to say something sucks for them to say it sucks).

I tend to take the view of not expressing an opinion unless I can back up my assertion with evidence - i.e. because of my debating background, I try to be ready to defend any position I take with reason and logic.

Which brings us back to the beginning - in the skinning community, there is a higher percentage than average of the population that doesn't respond well to reason and logic -- emotion, feelings, instincts and "that's just how I feel" are much more prevalent.

So those of you reading this, what do you think? Do debates make you uncomfortable? Is it your view that people should be entitled to their opinion and speak that opinion without being called on it? Or do you feel that when someone gives an opinion on something that others are equally entitled to call them on it?

I don't think either answer is better than the other. Afterall, on the one hand you don't want people to feel like they can't give an opinion on something without being challenged all the time. And on the other hand it's lazy intellectualism to constantly give opinions based on vague "gut feelings".

What's your view?
17,241 views 70 replies
Reply #52 Top
Doreen...12/31/2002 is just American...the 'real' world does it correctly....smallest to largest...D/M/Y...
Reply #53 Top
I stopped coming here awhile back because of the lack of debates. when this place started up it had lots of interesting debates. It was the only themesite where the people were intelligent enough to have heated debates that weren't flamefests. But then it got all lovey dovey. It losts its edge. I think FB got soft if you ask me. No ''community'' has as much of a superiority complex as the ''skinning community''. Bunch of high-and-mighty folks with naive opinions that they expect to be taken seriously just because they've been in ''the community'' a long time. People who had to many yes-men around them that they forgot that their opinions aren't facts. I'd like to see debates here but I don't have much hope. Weak minded people see disagreements as unfriendliness and there's no shortage of that in the overpoliticized franchise of ''the community''. The only guys who want to debate are guys like me or FB or Paxx or Jafo who seem to have the same ideas on lots of things or little kid pissants who think a debate is the act of trying to 'burn' people with one line wits like I see one just a couple respones above me. At least this places provides good help for new people. It is really top notch for that. But for real intellectual meat I go elsewhere.
Reply #54 Top
This isn't a debate, it's a contradiction....
No it isn't....
Yes it is....

Ah, where'd we be without Python?...
Reply #55 Top
Frank! You've changed! Don't you love us anymore?
I don't have time to debate anything Frank, my online time is limited these days, and I seem to run around like a mad thing trying to fit everything in!
But, I think it's unfair to say that because people don't get involved in debates they lack intelligence. Maybe many others don't have the time, the finger speed or the inclination. Or maybe, like me, they are just here for fun, and not the intellectual side of things?
I hope we see more of you again Frank.
Reply #56 Top
Then there are those that treat debate as a bit of a game. The object is to score the most points, of course
Reply #57 Top
I don't see it that way, Brad. To me, a debate has little to do with the topic at hand, which really only serves as a theme for the show. A debate only has to do with debating. A discussion on the other hand only concerns what is being discussed.
That's what I like discussion, and not so much debates.
Debating is a sport. Discussing is lounging.
Reply #58 Top
And by the way, I'm not debating what a debate is, I'm discussing it and expressing my view.
Reply #59 Top
http://www.britannica.com/cgi-bin/dict?va=debate

From Encyclopedia Britanica.
Reply #60 Top
Nooooooo!! You/he used the Dictionary Definition Argument... That always results in nitpicking over where to place to comma (so to speak). Ah well, can't resist.

Compare that definition to the one for discussion. First your/froggy's link:

"Main Entry: 1de·bate
Pronunciation: di-'bAt, dE-
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
: a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides"


...then the other meaning:

"Main Entry: 2debate
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): de·bat·ed; de·bat·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French debatre, from Old French, from de- + batre to beat, from Latin battuere
Date: 14th century
intransitive senses
1 obsolete : FIGHT, CONTEND
2 a : to contend in words b : to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments
3 : to participate in a debate
transitive senses
1 a : to argue about b : to engage (an opponent) in debate
2 : to turn over in one's mind
synonym see DISCUSS
- de·bate·ment /-'bAt-m&nt/ noun
- de·bat·er noun"


...and compare it to "discussion":

"Main Entry: dis·cus·sion
Pronunciation: di-'sk&-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
2 : a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing"


Or in other words, debate is a match, while discussion is an exchange of viewpoints.
Reply #62 Top
wow - long post for you crae...

you make a very interesting point, certainly one that's worth debating... or would it be dicussing?
Reply #63 Top
Hey...who's been messing with my dictionary?....Spell checker
Reply #64 Top
This debate/discussion on the differences between debates and discussions misses the point. Simply calling something a discussion does not relieve the participants of the need to form logical, cogent arguments nor does it change the meanings of opinions, preferences etc. It simply relaxes the rules regarding the formalities of how arguments are presented. Even crea's referenced definition of discussion, descibes it as an informal form of debate.
Reply #65 Top
That's because that's how dictionaries work. They try to describe the keyword. That doesn't mean it's the exact same thing (even though they list debate as a synonym of discussion), which is also why Dictionary Arguments are pointless. Look at us now...

And yes, I miss the point completely. Off Topic is my middle name.
Reply #66 Top
Anyway...
In MY point of view, a debate calls for a winner, while a discussion involves learning new ideas.
So, since I'm dropping the matter, you could see this conclusion two ways:
- if this is a debate: I forfeited and Frogboy won the debate
- if it's a discussion: I said what I had to say and see no need to keep repeating it ad nauseam

I had/have nothing to prove, I do not pursue to impress people nor to win anything. I just wanted to express my ideas, which I did.
Reply #67 Top
I had/have nothing to prove, I do not pursue to impress people nor to win anything. I just wanted to express my ideas, which I did.
by paxx - 5/1/2002 9:36:19 AM

now you guys are begining to give me a headache! hehe

paxxy isn't that exactly what I said up above? and isn't that called an "open debate" or "true debate"

Crae's Dictionary is prob Dutch so who knows what to expect on our end when he looks stuff up in it...
Reply #68 Top
paxx

You have a point there. Debate does imply winner/loser, discussion merely affords an opportunity to express ones views without the pressure of scoring debating points.

I just felt that it needed to be said that people who express opinions in public forums like this shouldn't be surprised or offended when someone rebuts them. That's usually how flame wars start.

Typical msg board debate on some sites :

"I believe blah"

"I believe opposite of blah"

"Well, you're an %$#hole"

Let the games begin.
Reply #69 Top
I think some guys here need to look up a strawman argument.

All I had to demonstrate is that the accepted definition of a debate is NOT: "1. debate = pointless, closed-minded spouting of opinions, supposedly backed up by "facts", in order to convince the audience."

I believe I stated above that I look at debates as almost a quasi-strategy game in which you are trying to convince third parties but they aren't necessarily or even usually pointless closed-minded spouting of opinions.

The whole thing is semantics. Bottom line is that some people like to utter strong opinions and not be challenged on those opinions while others enjoy challenging the basis for people's opinions.

Reply #70 Top
I agree with jcg. He expresses the same thing I feel very succinctly.

Based on what I've seen, too many people like to make baseless statements and when someone challenges them to back them up with evidence will try to turn the argument into "You won't tolerate any one else's opinions."

In fact, you could say that's pretty much how the Customize admins got into their mess. When challenged to substantiate their assertions about WindowBlinds vs. Style XP they couldn't and so resorted to "you just aren't willing to tolerate dissenting opinions." All I was looking for was for them to explain why they felt the way they did with actual facts or experiences. Ashamed that they could not form a coherent argument, they launched into abuse and flame baiting.

That's just a recent example. Other poor debaters I've seen include people like Shoggot who will express very strong opinions but seem to lack the ability to put together a coherent argument. Remember his claim that the GUI Olympics were fixed because I made a complementary remark to Greenreaper? He posted on every website. It was a very flimsy argument that time has shown was false. But since he was already convinced that Stardock is "evil" (his words) it stood to reason that any actions we did must be "evil" as well. But when challenged to substantiate his opinons, he was unable to do so and quickly reverted to the tried and true "I'm allowed to have my opinon!" Even though he could not come up with a single legitimate reason to form his opinion.

I bring up these examples for a particular reason - The ability to provide rational arguments is important in a community. It could be argued that Shoggot's and Custo's loss of prestige and influence over the months is directly related to people seeing this inbability to back up strong assertions with evidence. That was, as humans, having lived in societies for so long, are naturally inclined to respect those who can articulate their opinions based on rational reasoning. And those that cannot inevitably lose respect.

This is one reason why I think that those who hold strong opinions should consider why they have those opinions before airing them in a public forum. For if someone challenges those opinions, one better be prepared to back them up with seemingly rational reasons (evidence).

Of course, in our particular community there is a higher than average intolerance for lengthy posts. In the discussion gruops I belong to, my posts are considered brief and pithy. Here they are long - because qualified arguments with evidence are difficult to do briefly.