Debate Info

Better in real life Better online
Debate Score:27
Total Votes:29
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Better in real life (7)
 Better online (8)

Debate Creator

HGrey87(750) pic

Debate: better in Real Life?

Title says it all. Description says nothing of value :D

Better in real life

Side Score: 10

Better online

Side Score: 17

I'll take this side since Nichole took the other. I'm not at all certain on-line debate is the thing but she makes some good points. Years ago on every Saturday afternoon, TV had schools debating one another on any variety of topics and they seemed to be well mannered and civil not to mention that everyone allowed each debater to make their point without interruption! That was the best but today, on TV you watch the talking heads speaking over each other, each trying to outdo the other. If it was all like that I wouldn't like it very much and opt into the other side quickly! I liked the Presidential debates and thought they were fairly well handled by the moderators in charge. I thought they were very fairly done.

Side: Better in real life
nonostrum(10) Disputed
1 point

I started to read your argument and i was in agreement with you until i read this:

"I liked the Presidential debates and thought they were fairly well handled by the moderators in charge. I thought they were very fairly done."

Sir, if you believe the Presidential debates were handled fairly, you were not paying attention.

The most striking examples are CNN's exclusion of Mike Gravel from the New Hampshire debate, and the attempted exclusion of Ron Paul from the debates by ABC and Fox news.

Mike Gravel is a perfectly qualified contender and ex-Senator from Alaska. He was responsible for the bill which helped pull us out of the disaster of Vietnam, and is a true American Hero. Moreover, he exhibits the characteristic so rare in politics and public life: sanity.

The debate where Gravel did appear, he was passed over in questioning until he was forced by this abuse to speak up and demand an opportunity to be heard.

Ron Paul was at the time and still is a sitting congressman from Texas, and had as good a following to qualify for the debate as any of the supposed more qualified individuals such as Fred Thompson.

When finally given the opportunity to appear, he was asked rigged questions by the moderator such as Do you have any credibility? This is tantamount to an outright ad homonim attack. This shows very bad taste on the part of the moderator, and the Fox network.

The nature of the presidential debates in general was less a forum of debate, then of question and answer of unsubstantive vetted questions by the moderator, who represented the interests of their network, and not those of the country at large.

By shaping context of the debate, both in persons, and in questions posed, the debate ceases to be a debate, and becomes instead the statement of a singular policy. This is what you saw.

The presidential debates were far from fair, they were not even debates.

more on ex-Senator from Alaska Mike Gravel being excluded from the New Hampshire debate:

more on sitting Congressman from Texas being bullied from debates.

Side: Better online
2 points

The big advantage of in-person debates is that they're fast. A full week of back and forth with somebody here on CD could often be condensed into one five minute conversation in person.

Plus, non-verbal communication can make it easier to get a point across.

Side: Better in real life
1 point

Good point about the non verbal communication. I did not think of that one. Also the speed aspect is very good one. Good points.

Side: Better in real life
1 point

Debates are better in Real Life.

I refer to public speaking debates as being real, and to online as not being real.

Similar to the sense of justice in the one time right of the accused to confront his accuser in the trial system,

the opportunity to confront ones opponent in person in the battle of words of a debate is refreshing.

Online, you never meet the little punks, and they feel free to state any frivolous, inflammatory, or caustic remark confidant that they will never be called to task over their statements.

Also the real life debate has a sense of finality about it, in that once the debate is concluded, it is over. You have either won or lost.

Whereas an online debate one feels compelled to constantly defend your position against every new post attempting to discredit your efforts.

A printed argument can be considered part of a debate in a more general sense, and is also real. But being generally vetted by the publisher, the content usually reflects their timid attitudes.

While online debate forums have (thus far) shown their inferiority in meeting the same level of quality as public speaking debates, the online debate forums offer much more opportunity for access to debate both as observer and participant. And for these reasons online debate is a very valuable forum for debate, as our society is enriched by having them. However, the quality of public forum in person speaking debates is superior. Therefore the speaker posits that debate is better in real life.

Side: Better in real life
1 point

It's a lot easier to take things point by point and force the other to go over each point in real life.

the main problem i find hear is that Specific points have to be repeated again and again because people keep on ignoring them. not on purpose, but when you read an argument and then have to rebut it, you sometimes miss a few details.

I try to avoid this by numbering my debates when rebutting. But stuff always gets lost, and as Jessald said, IRL is so much faster.

Side: Better in real life
1 point

Better in real life as, for one, it is on what you ACTUALLY know. When debating online if you get cornered you can always Google some facts etc. to try and make yourself seem smarter. If you got cornered in real life you have to rely on your own knowledge. Furthermore, real life debates are a lot more adrenaline pumping and intense; sure online debates can get intense but nothing beats a person battling off their own wits in order to try and prove a point. Real life debates also bring emotion into play which can bring in a whole new spectrum of game play (though it can also reduce some debates to rubble truth be told). I also think real life debates sort out 'the men from the boys' so to speak as it is a lot about who is confident to support their point to the end - anybody can support a various claim online but it takes gutso to do so in person.

Side: Better in real life
5 points

Definitely better online. For several reasons. One big reason being that no one can interrupt you. You say what you have to say in one message, send it, they read it ALL, and fight back. The communication is just overall better online rather in person, as soon as you know someone is going to say something you don't agree with, you'll refuse to listen to the whole thing and start attacking.

Side: Better online
3 points

In addition to what nichole said i think, that in online debating, you are able to present more detailed information. You can check the internet for facts and sources before you post. Also you have more time to organize your thoughts and prepare a better argument. While I don't think everyone will read your entire debate post just because you have it typed up you at least have documentation that everyone can see regarding what you said and thus you can create better counter arguments depending on how much their arguments attacked or ignored your post.

Side: Better online
3 points

Debating online gives me time to think about what I'm going to say without looking like an idiot and research a multitude of topics easily. Also, when I get really pissed at people, there is a 0% chance I will charge at them and try to hurt them. :)

Side: Better online
2 points

Also, if you start saying something online, then decide you don't know enough about the topic, as long as you haven't hit the "post" button, you can change your mind. Once you open your mouth, though, you're done for.

Though the real advantage for me is that it gives me an opportunity to give my opinions in a "safe" way. I don't really like talking to people I don't know and I certainly don't like conflict with people I don't know (in face-to-face conversations). But I have a lot more confidence online. (Though I respect the people I'm talking to, I actually say something instead of sitting in silence)

Side: Better online

Better online. I can take a lot of the negativity out of my argument and also because I can avoid getting slapped ;)

Side: Better online
1 point

Better online for a few good reasons. You cant get judged based on your tone because online you don't have a tone. You cant be to aggressive online because how are you going to yell at someone. That are two good reasons debate is better online. ( also online you don't ever have to know anything about anything kind of like exempt)

Side: Better online
0 points

Facebook is definitely better online. Imagine if you called your friends up just to tell them you like pickles, or you miss your girlfriend or that "The Arcade Fire r0kz0rZ!" They'd disown you, you'd have zero friend instead of 357. Facebook is like a security blanket for your annoying bullshit, it creates a bubble where it's perfectly acceptable to let 300 people know you just when to the bathroom and your pee smells like Corn Pops.

Sex Online, however, I'm sure that's better in real life . . . probably . . .

Side: Better online
Nichole(689) Disputed
1 point

Is this guy lost? ....................................................................

Side: Better in real life