Silver Guard- says:
Your debate with the Canadian is tiresome and confusing, I'm sorry, but reading through conception and misconception of Philosophers I've never heard of does not appeal to me, it is far better to discuss using ones own philosophy then one of a dead man who most have not heard of
Tostig/Mike says:
But one's own philosophy has a terrible habit of being nothing more than the unpurified ideas that others before have had, unless one educates oneself as to what our predecessors have thought and said
Silver Guard- says:
Yes but to re-iterate what our predecessors have said makes you know better then an analysis PC, what separates you from others is the way you absorb and edit information, rather then how you copy and paste others ideas which make reasonable debate, arguing over which philosopher said what is no reason for sensible debate
Tostig/Mike says:
But it is of discussion. Discussion is far more worthwhile that debate - debate is a mere clash of worldviews, but discussion is a mutual attempt to try and widen our own worldviews, and this lead us to make our choices better.
Silver Guard- says:
A discussion is no way to fix the wrong however, a thread in the EMM should not be a consolidation of views, in such a case it belongs more in private, a debate however is something people can relate to, and is thus as much entertainment as education for even viewers, a discussion teaches the viewer nothing
Tostig/Mike says:
Of course discussion does not fix wrong, but neither does debate - debate merely shuts up one lot of wrong for the moment. Discussion bloody well belongs in the EMM. It is a discussion of all the Arts and how they impact on our choice making processes and the best way of fixing the wrong - which naturally leads us to how others have tried fixing the wrong, and in turn how others have viewed such attempts
On the other hand a debate is of practically no educational value, and does not educate at all
I refer you to "Internet Arguments from an Emotivism Viewpoint"
It was only with crandar that this unsavory obsession with the formalized debate began
I mean, El Guapo's topic about Buddhism, and the Fish's about Hinduism were both discussions not debates. Should those be banned?
Silver Guard- says:
No, not banned, as rather then discussions they become information pits, where from people can learn new information by simply viewing. The discussion between yourself and gigagaia is of no informative value in comparison to these threads, as you frequent disagreements with no real conclusion to speak of leads any viewer able to understand what your saying to have no idea who to follow. To even understand you need to have a prior understanding of the subject, as such it is of no value. The 'unsavory obsession' is something that a forum like our own cannot do without. Debate such as that in the theist vs. atheist threads can connect to most if not all of the audience, thus providing information, it also permits contribution. Your thread however is lost on all but the smallest minority
Tostig/Mike says:
On a minority of fairly well educated, intelligent and willing people? Sir, that is what TWC was and ought to be. A group of people who come together not to go "I am right, you are wrong." about theism or politics, but rather to educate each other further and to mutually increase their ability to make good decision. It is from your point of view that the Curia has inherited most of its current failings I am afraid. Giga and I find our thread interesting, informative and of great worth, as opposed to your lauded "theism vs. atheist" which is pointless and like flogging a dead horse. Nothing will change as people already have their preconceived worldviews that cannot be changed in the framework of debate
Silver Guard- says:
This is not the minority I'm referring to, the minority of which you speak is quite at home in any other debate or discussion, the one of which I speak is the smallest section of this minority who know of these great philosophers, I myself have never heard of them, but I challenge anyone to call me uneducated, and thus we have the difference of the two minorities. Giga and yourself are most likely
Tostig/Mike says:
You have not heard of Hobbes or of Rousseau or of Machiavelli? Then yes, I would call you uneducated when it comes to the humanities. Not even Voltaire?
Silver Guard- says:
Two of the few people who even understand the thread, much less can post answers to it. The theism vs. atheism was an example, rather then a utopian equation. Most debates on such an issue on this, in which one side has no basing in fact, is as likely to fail as any other considering ghosts ect. A more efficient example would be a discussion on the merit of Caesar as a politician; in such a debate both sides would have grounds in fact, thus leading to intelligible debate
I have heard of them, I have not the faintest idea of what they discussed
Tostig/Mike says:
But unless one side provides evidence that crushes the others worldview nothing is learned as each side ignores the relevance of information that does not fit into it. In the format of discussion people are more accepting of new information and learn more. If you want to tone down discussion so that it is only explanation to the unknowing masses then I agree that there can be no education of the explainer. However I do not see what you have against a reasoned and knowledgeable discussion
Silver Guard- says:
Against a normal discussion I see nothing wrong, yours however is one distanced from almost the entire population of TWC, and thus does not have a place there.
Tostig/Mike says:
I know, which is why we told those with nothing to contribute to **** off in the first post
Silver Guard- says:
The one side which defeats the other, in the end, learns nothing, the one which loses however, learns of how he lost and the realization that his point is wrong, on either side both learn of separate points of view, in the end the victorious side learns of things they did not know of (otherwise it would have ended rather swiftly) and the defeated learns that they are wrong. Others viewing the debate after learn the same things. That is the reason it is not in the right place at TWC but belongs in a private discussion, if no one else can contribute then it is worthless as a public debate
Tostig/Mike says:
Other people can contribute, as the thread has shown. If you yourself cannot then I suggest you read a tad more. We set up the thread partly in order to demonstrate what an ideal thread should be like. No aggression, no ad hominem. Disagreements? Certainly, but within the framework of a nice chat rather than a heated argument. If others do not understand then how is that our problem? If they do
And want to contribute then they can go ahead
Silver Guard- says:
There has been one other contributor as far as I have seen, out of far more views, I personally got half way through your first post and gave up, if you are to give an example of a perfect debate then at least choose something everyone can understand, debate, and therefore relate too. You can hardly expect the entire of TWC wishing to find out how to debate to "read a tad more" just so you can get a point across
Tostig/Mike says:
Is it our fault you do not understand our discussion? I think not. All you want to see is all discussion that you cannot immediately understand banned from happening publicly. How totalitarian.
Silver Guard- says:
Yes it is, as an example of good debate, it is appalling in that many will switch off within the first few lines, let alone the entire discussion. Essentially the EMM is a mass debating conference, if everyone was like you and opened threads only relevant to those who had exactly their interests then the majority would eventually be stranded in a mass of small groups caring for nothing but those who understand them personally, not a good way to welcome new members or to keep the veterans interested in debate at all. As you're trying to show how to sensibly debate then this is possibly the worst way to do so
Tostig/Mike says:
It isn't a matter of interests; it is a matter of knowledge that you were complaining about, non? So your conclusion doesn't follow from the predicates. As I said I am not showing anyone anything, let alone a debate, but rather having what I consider to be a thoroughly good and interesting discussion. If you feel otherwise then be free to ignore it. Why must everyone have a right to?
Immediately understand all that goes on in public. I wouldn't try and close a discussion on post-modernism just because I don't understand it.
Imagine if Darth Wong and I were discussing quantum theory. We are educating each other, but others might not understand or be interested. Why would you close it?
Silver Guard- says:
I would not close it, I'd be perplexed on why it is not being conducted say in MSN rather then in public, around people who do not care for it. Imagine going to a dinner party full of Chemists, if you start a load discussion on Engineering with the only one who understands you, you cannot expect the others to be to cheerful about it, such a discussion could just as easily, and have more right to be in private rather then in public
Tostig/Mike says:
But would the others suggest you leave the room and have it elsewhere? Of course not. The medium of the forum allows one to lay out ones thoughts and discuss them in a much more mature and dignified manner, one that helps learning in fact.
Silver Guard- says:
No they would not, not immediately anyway, they may, as I have done, suggest it in private. The medium of the forums is one that is meant, as a forum, to handle large amounts of users. When you isolate groups of users then you find yourself not with a forum, but as a collection of forums, and within each forum, small societies only capable of debating within themselves, this is not how a forum should be
Tostig/Mike says:
Nonsense, when people speak of the TWC's golden age they mean one of small, highly developed discussions like ours. The forum was meant for all communication, not just debate vs. discussion. I could debate atheism vs. theism, but I already have too many times for it to be interesting or informative again. However you have still not explained how educated discussion using relevant terms and terminology results in a breakdown of communication between groups, you have merely asserted it. Besides, what else are the VV, Pit and Ethos but splits in the discussion of what is?
Silver Guard- says:
They are very large splits, covering vast tracks of discussion and debate. My simple point it, why make a discussion only understandable by two or three individuals public, it is far more at home private, where the two can benefit far swifter (as you could for example use an instant messenger) there is no reason for it to be in the forums at all
Tostig/Mike says:
Vast tracks that Giga, MoROmeTe and I have managed to cover in seven posts. Yes there is, it lends itself to the type of intelligent discussion. Why should we who know about it have to explain anything to everyone else?
Silver Guard- says:
You don't, the entire point you seem to be missing is there is no reason to place what is essentially a private discussion anyway
Tostig/Mike says:
Yes there is - if others understand it they can join in too, as has happened.
Silver Guard- says:
One, one other person has understood it; please explain the justification for posting it in a forum with hundreds of posters? It’s like raising a debate for sex-changers in a mother’s council
Tostig/Mike says:
1. No it isn't, this is a debate. 2. What evidence do you have that others, excluding yourself, won't be educated by it? 3. Why do we need justification? I have already told you it is better, and it is not illegal.
Silver Guard- says:
1. No what isn't? 2. The fact that no one else has contributed to the discussion bar one, and that since it is a discussion in which one needs prior knowledge of the subject, it is meaningless as an education thread. 3. You do not (this is similar to arguing with a theist) but why?
Tostig/Mike says:
It is different to having a debate - we are having a discussion and a dialogue. Debate depends on "discredit[ing] their views in the eyes of third parties", which I agree would be wrong in the situation of other uninterested people, however a discussion does not demand the involvement of others, and so is fine. Secondly one can still be educated if one has a grasp of what is going on. For instance
I found giga's suggestion of using schools of thoughts as filters very enlightening. 3. Because it is beneficial for utilitarian reasons. So why not?
Silver Guard- says:
A discussion that has no need for other participators has no need for an audience. And that second paragraph of yours, I don't have a clue what that means
Who else would have found it enlightening?
Tostig/Mike says:
Anyone who read and understood it?
What, are you denying that there were no others, despite the evidence to the contrary? Then I demand that you prove that debate can be educational.
Then go and read.
Silver Guard- says:
What are the chances of anyone understanding it? We've already diss...Debated this (doesn’t sound quite right) what others? I saw no others!
Debate is educational to most parties because it requires an audience or it has no meaning. One or the other may be convinced, but it can progress no further, with an audience you are not convincing one, but convincing several. Saying this is not education is
Like saying that a Jew-hater entering debate and being convinced that Jews are not in fact evil is not being educated
Tostig/Mike says:
But how many people observe but do not engage in debates? And how many people have their opinions altered during a debate, compared to a discussion? Besides, your final argument could be applied to what we are having too. The anti-Semite could have his opinion changed without an audience. With a discussion you need no audience, so not everyone must understand it.
Silver Guard- says:
A discussion is not necessitating opinion change, a debate however is bent entirely on having one, and without an opinion change there is no conclusion. Yes the anti-Semitic would not NEED an audience, but an audience of other anti-semantics would increase the usefulness (cant think of a better word) of the debate itself. Our debate can only hope to aid one another, hence why with your permission I hope to make a thread of it, once we have reached a conclusion, or more likely I am forced to sleep
Tostig/Mike says:
In any case my brain is beginning to stop working now. Shall we bring the dialogue to an end?
Silver Guard- says:
Indeed. Please list a conclusion and I will list mine, I'll copy this out, edit it, and place it in a thread
Tostig/Mike says:
Conclusion - A debate needs an audience to enlighten, and so function, while discussions and dialogues do not, and so need no audience. Although my respect for Silver guard has grown with this disc...dia...deb... chat I none the less still feel inclined to disagree with him
Silver Guard- says:
Conclusion: A debate does not need an audience, but an audience improves the use of a debate immensely, by providing more then one change of opinion if brought to a conclusion. Discussions and Dialogues, by their very meaning, do not need or have want of an audience, and so have no place in a forum.
Thank you Tostig for this debate, and as we are both as stubborn as one another, I feel inclined to say this debate may never conclude
A debate on debate and discussion: Tostig vs. Silver Guard
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by rez
