What Is Your Definition Of A Good Debater & Where Do You Fall Short?
We gather on CD to debate issues. Sometimes those issues are personal but many times the issues involve subject matter that must be proved in order to argue its worthiness and viability as a debate properly.
Both are acceptable forms of debate from my own viewpoint. What is it then that makes a good debater? Why does one argument pro or con command your attention while others are tantamount to chaff culled from the wheat that simply flies away? Do you know where you might fall short as a debater? Let us leave specific subject matter out of this and concentrate on the title of this debate.
|
3
points
A good debater is not only someone who knows what they are talking about but one who can identify the flaws in facts within arguments without crucifying the person because of it. I think a good debater also knows what questions to ask a person on the other side and takes it as an opportunity to clarify or reiterate their own stance on the issues. A good debater also knows when to end their input but also knows if that debate is still very much alive, to go back and see what's going on there! I think I fall short in several areas not the least of which are those containing a "Gay" topic. I tend to try not to go back and give more input when I should do so. I get too angry and insulted that I sometimes cannot utter another word without scraping my brains off the ceiling! Since I am the resident CD Gay person I need to not take it all so personally. Another area I fall short in is when others don't speak up or speak out when people aren't backing up their statements. I think I should do it more often but I don't...and I also don't want to be the only one doing it lest it make me look like I'm being too perfect. One other area is my penchant for understanding the human condition and basing my arguments on that. I don't think any of you like that trait but are hesitant to say something. Another thing that annoys most of you, I'm sure, is when I get on my English kick. I absolutely deplore the spelling here and I think it makes arguments seem unimportant. Side: Back it up and please write in English
"Another thing that annoys most of you, I'm sure, is when I get on my English kick. I absolutely deplore the spelling here and I think it makes arguments seem unimportant." I agree. And the worst part about this is the fact that there is a button clearly labeled "check spelling" right next to preview, which is next to submit.... It shows the extreme laziness of people when they have multiple spelling errors. Or it shows that they just aren't too great at proofreading. :) Side: Back it up and please write in English
3
points
Someone who realizes that life's most difficult questions don't have a right or wrong answer. There are no absolute answers to these questions. Each option to one of these questions comes with a different set of good points and bad points. We assign weights to the good points and bad points in order to make our decision but those weights are subjective; they are not universally accepted. A good debater also realizes that changing someone's mind on any one of these questions is difficult at best if not down right impossible. Has anyone here ever changed their point of view with regards to abortion, terrorism, the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, or global warming based on some argument someone posted on CD; or anywhere for that matter? A good debater doesn't take debates, arguments, down votes, etc. too seriously because it's foolish to get bent out of shape over something you have little (if any) control over. You just accept it for what it is and move on. Imagine someone getting bent out of shape because the sun rises on the East and never on the West. You can always tell a good debater by looking at their icon. An icon showing a little guy typing until his arms fall of is a sign that the person is not a good debater. This is where I fall short ;) Side: Back it up and please write in English
I think a good debater is someone who knows what they are talking about. The person needs to listen to the other side and respect the other person's opinion. Yelling, name calling, and profanity are big taboos. I fall short mostly in the respecting others opinions. I try really hard but sometimes I lose it. Side: RESPECT
2
points
This is difficult to answer. My definition of a good debater is someone who uses their intelligence in a given subject to bring about clarity in a often chaotic state. Let me also add that I've met excellent debaters that have no clue what they're talking about, they are just great at convincing and persuading. Does that mean they aren't good debaters? No, but I wouldn't trust them with information. (but sometimes it takes a while to figure out the truth) As for where I fall short, I would say I let my passion get in the way. Many times I'll just jump in with my "feelings" and then figure out the facts later. (i have a pretty good sense for research and know the basics but as for the details, that's when the research comes into play) I really don't think I'm a good debater. Side: Someone with persuasive skills
1
point
Someone who can address the question at hand and fully comprehend the topic. Then provide an intelligent constructive argument to those who have previously posted and not going astray from the topic at hand. Makes little to no grammatical errors or spelling errors as there is no excuse for that. I think that I fall short in some debates in the area of comprehension. Some debates I look at what people are saying and I feel like a lost puppy dog. I have not quite had the experience needed for some debates here on this site. Some debates are just about as simple as the concept of making ice. While other are about as simple as counting to Avogadro's number to me. So I fall short in the experience department that is my divination =\ Side: addresses topic
1
point
Here's the thing Wolf...the more you listen and read the more you'll know about all manner of information about all sorts of things. None of us got here overnight and it takes time to go inter-generational with things. I do not consider this to be a flaw in you or anyone else your age. How can it be so? On the other end there are things I feel lost in and those are the areas of life and leisure I haven't kept up with and perhaps one loses interest in them with age. I don't know of anyone on this site that could fault you for this if you allow yourself to ask about things, especially your friends and allies. Come to me ant time you'd like and I'll always try and help. Side: Back it up and please write in English
Either a person is able to debate a question, or is not able to debate a question. I can’t agree to the use of the terms ,good or bad, to modify the term, debater. A person can either debate or cannot debate. I will not affirm that a person’s attempt to debate is an act of debating. Many people assume they can debate a question, when in fact, they fail to understand the question of debate, let alone understand their own propositions, if, they even begin with a proposition. Moreover, they fail to recognize the purpose and procedure of a logical debate. (Formal debate is a matter of validity, it is not a matter of truth; yet, all truths are validly deduced.) Conclusion: a debater can debate. And there are some who try to debate. My weaknesses in debate: discerning the emotion of online debaters, knowing when someone is trying to learn to debate, squashing the intellect of those with less experience and understanding than myself, and knowing how best to communicate within the limits of the understanding of the opposition. Perhaps I forgot that I too may be at least a little arrogant at times. What is the difference between a good runner and a bad runner? Do not both run? Side: one who debates
2
points
That is a very black and white viewpoint LM and I cannot agree. All people are able to debate but it's the level of information that sets it apart as well as the understanding of the question at hand. Yes, both can run, BUT, they run at different speeds, have different techniques that add a nanosecond to their time and are simply better runners. Again, we can all run...but at what level? Side: Back it up and please write in English
Hello, K Thanks for opposing my viewpoint. I haven’t debated with anyone in a while, even though I’ve posted many arguments at CD. The terms, good/bad, are not in my lexicon. I removed them many years ago. They are simply over-used and no longer fit for my usage in a debate. Yet, if I do use them, I perceive they bare witness of my sense of judgment and discernment, and not the subject of which I predicate good or bad. If I say, “George Dubya Bush was a good president.” The ensuing argument will have me as the subject, and ignorance as the predicate. If I say, “George Dubya Bush was a bad president.” The ensuing argument will have me as the subject, and ignorance as the predicate. If I say, “The pope is a bad man.” The ensuing argument will have me as the subject, and judge as the predicate. If I say, “The pope is a good man.” The ensuing argument will have me as the subject, and good as the predicate. (Both are judgments)Hint, Hint The utility of words is of utmost importance to me in a debate, and to mislead or obscure what I am attempting to communicate to another, by the usage of useless terms, is not my objective of a debate. You say that my viewpoint is black and white? Definitely! Most of my views are black and white, and as a consequence of such, my viewpoints are readily if not easily understood by most people. Concerning debating: I tend to be as compassionate as is reasonably allowable. Many forums, in which I was a participant vis a vis the opposition, did not meet the criteria for a debate. They were more like comedies at the expense of someone. People who are ignorant of logic and its uses and limitations should not think they can debate someone who is trained in the art of debate. When such things as those occur, there is no debate. Ask the audience, and they will say, “It wasn’t even a debate.” No person who is ignorant of formal logic and it uses and limitations should ever think about debating anybody; for they lack the fundamentals for identifying what is a logical debate. We would never assert that two people can have an illogical debate, at least I would not. Heated discussions are not debates. Heated discussions are the domain of illogical arguments and every fallacy that can be named. Conclusion: People , whose discussions are the imitations of debate, ought to know or be told when their statements are or are not suitable for the purpose of a debate. And just because they can move their mouths and utter sounds, which we call words, is not an evidence that they know how to debate or should debate. One last thing: The first step of any man, or woman, toward becoming a skilled debater is the recognition that he, or she, is ignorant of many things about logic and debate. Thanks for the opportunity. Side: Back it up and please write in English
|
