CreateDebate


Debate Info

9
21
Yes , facts are a waste of tim No , facts are facts
Debate Score:30
Arguments:33
Total Votes:30
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes , facts are a waste of tim (8)
 
 No , facts are facts (13)

Debate Creator

Debater345(170) pic



Is using facts in your debates a waste of time ?

Okay , so if you have heard of the backfire effect what it is is when you are having a debate with someone and you use facts to support your side . What is wrong with this is the facts you use to support your argument actually works against you and makes your opponent believe in their point even more . Thus , being called the backfire effect . The reason being , they see you as one person . And no matter how smart you are , one person has a limited amount of knowledge . This fact causes your opponent to believe that there are facts out there that neither of you know and that these facts that they don't know of will make them right . I have seen this happen personally , me and my friends were arguing about two superheroes fighting to the death ( I'm a nerd , don't judge ) and I gave indisputable proof that the superhero I supported was in everyway superior and would win . Instead of accepting I was clearing right they told others of the debate and they were all ganging up on me . I told all of them what I told the original people I was arguing with and they to denied the indisputable facts and came up with the stupidest arguments ever . So are facts really the best way to win a debate , or is there a better way . Whether you say yes or no please state your reasons . 

Yes , facts are a waste of tim

Side Score: 9
VS.

No , facts are facts

Side Score: 21
1 point

Facts are useless in debates, because debating is about making up your own facts.

Side: Yes , facts are a waste of tim
Atrag(5556) Clarified
2 points

Troll. Why not actually say something you believe for once?

Side: Yes , facts are a waste of tim
ProLogos(2794) Clarified
1 point

My actual thoughts are indisputable. That's no fun. :(

Side: Yes , facts are a waste of tim
Debater345(170) Clarified
1 point

You put your argument on the wrong side . The question was " are facts useless in a debate " . By saying " no " you said facts are useful .

Side: Yes , facts are a waste of tim
ProLogos(2794) Clarified
1 point

Wow that's crazy.

Well, what's done, is done.

Side: Yes , facts are a waste of tim
DrawFour(2662) Clarified
1 point

...

Side: Yes , facts are a waste of tim
ProLogos(2794) Clarified
1 point

Hi, RawWhore.

Would you like some cheesecake? 8D

Side: Yes , facts are a waste of tim
1 point

Around here? Yeah, pretty much a waste of time.

Side: Yes , facts are a waste of tim
Atrag(5556) Disputed
1 point

Said like you have actually tried it....

Side: No , facts are facts
Hellno(17756) Disputed
2 points

I predict you will become a very lonely, bitter old man wandering the streets of Spain, mumbling under your breath... USAians this USAians that.... People will shield their children from you as you pass.

Side: Yes , facts are a waste of tim
3 points

No, that's backwards.

The debate is a waste of time if there are no facts.

Side: No , facts are facts
Debater345(170) Disputed
1 point

If there are facts the debate is a waste of time as well because of the backfire effect .

Side: Yes , facts are a waste of tim
MuckaMcCaw(1969) Disputed
5 points

The backfire effect isn't universal. And in this day and age of smartphones and the internet, secondary verification of claims is quite easy and, in at least some cases, quite convincing.

I admit it can be easier to sway an opponent with emotional appeals, but I stand my belief that such appeals do not a successful debate make.

Side: No , facts are facts
2 points

Ethos. Pathos. Logos. The most successful debaters utilize all three.

Side: No , facts are facts

There are facts about fiction superheroes ?

Side: No , facts are facts
thousandin1(1931) Clarified
1 point

Sure. Even if we assume that, say, Jesus didn't exist, his turning of water into wine was a fact- it's just a question of whether it was a fact within the context of concrete reality (bible as fact), or a fact within the context of the work of fiction that his adventures and those of his followers are recorded in (bible as fiction). A question of concrete existence vs conceptual existence; are these qualities of a Jesus that existed in a concrete form, or are these qualities of a Jesus that only existed as a concept?

I know you have difficulty with the distinction between concrete and conceptual existence, so I hope that explanation clears it up for you.

Side: Yes , facts are a waste of tim
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
1 point

Boy you're off you rocker more than usual tonight.

I know you have difficulty with the distinction between concrete and conceptual existence, so I hope that explanation clears it up for you.

I have no problem knowing the difference. It is you that is arguing that there can be fictional facts. If facts are fictional, then they are not facts. Facts are concrete and there is no such thing as a conceptual facts.

Conceptual: concerned with the definitions or relations of the concepts of some field of enquiry rather than with the facts.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conceptual

Side: Yes , facts are a waste of tim
1 point

I have no facts to base this argument on, but I do believe using facts is beneficial and is not a waste of time. Often, it leads to a time savings because one can quickly understand what someone is basing their thought process on.

Side: No , facts are facts
1 point

Officially facts are the only way to win an argument. You have to be able to prove your point, how do you do that without facts?

In a debate to legalize something, to have some one freed, to save someone's life, the only thing that matters at the end of the day when the ruling is called, is the facts, and the evidence.

Emotional appeals will only get you so far, and they ultimately rely on everyone feeling the same as you. Try the emotional appeal as a killer. Say "I killed her because she pissed me off. You know what that's like right?" For the people who don't know what that's like, you're just a crazy person just admitted to killing someone. In that scenario, the fact that you killed someone won over your emotional appeal to those that the killing was justified.

Side: No , facts are facts
Debater345(170) Disputed
1 point

I meant on the internet , not in a court . Probably should have put that in the description . Lol

Side: Yes , facts are a waste of tim
DrawFour(2662) Clarified
1 point

Well online there's no point in arguing at all, no one has to admit anything. Those around you however will look at your arguments, and pick the side they most agree with and say it is correct, meaning you have to appeal to your potential audience. Since the majority of people in this world can't dispute facts, facts fall back to being the best way to win an argument.

Side: Yes , facts are a waste of tim
1 point

they support your argument and makes it much stronger :)

Side: No , facts are facts
1 point

Facts are facts. That is a fact. They help support your argument and make it more believable/convincing. However, at the same time, depending on the nature of the debate, facts are necessarily needed. If it was a heavily opinion-based debate, then one could argue that opinions would be more beneficial than facts.

Side: No , facts are facts