Is it possible for an argument to be judge on its own merit, without predetermined bias.
Atheists down-vote Christian comments based only on the bases that they are Christian comments and vice-versa. The same can also be said about up-voting.
This also happens in political debates and even in debates where just a preference is displayed.
Is anothers views so terrifying that it compells one to do everything to protect their own view?
Yes
Side Score: 2
|
 |
No
Side Score: 3
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, just in the debate I had today with a Christian, even though I didn't agree from the beginning, I didn't assume anything until she ran out of things to say, yet was still trying to justify her belief. I like a good argument, and a good debater, or at least someone who is debating to learn things, rather than win win win will not judge before reading and thinking about the contents of a message. Insults, I don't really read, and I dish them out too, but I do still think about a debate. How else does someone who was once Christian become atheist? It wasn't pure logic. I needed outside information and help and good arguments. 329 days ago | Side: Yes
However, many times people don't look at an argument and think about all it's points right away, and if you had previously debated the topic, such as religion, which is an extremely shallow and over debated topic, trying to empathize with the "enemy" is difficult. 329 days ago | Side: No
|
1
point
Bias is inevitable in human action. Human beings naturally form biases as a form of categorization. The key, in argument, is to try as hard as possible to focus solely on the argument. This is why I will often try to respond directly to the statements instead of bringing up other issues that are unrelated to what the person said. It helps to bold a statement and then respond to it. When you notice that as you respond you are no longer answering that specific statement, move on in the argument (either find a new statement or make your conclusion). 329 days ago | Side: No
|
