When is a debate won in a thread?

[Upchurch]

It seems to me that, in a perfect world, a debate is "won" when one side concedes the topic of debate to the other side. And while that does sometimes happen (often on minor points), It is more often the case that the discussion is ended when one side simply quits posting.

My question is this: should that be considered conceding the point by virtue of not wanting or being able to continue the discussion?

[Martin]

No. There are too many people who simply repeat the same old crap over and over until the other side get sick of the discussion and quit. That does not constitute 'winning' by any stretch of the imagination.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What Martin said.

~~ Paul

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Upchurch
It seems to me that, in a perfect world, a debate is "won" when one side concedes the topic of debate to the other side. And while that does sometimes happen (often on minor points), It is more often the case that the discussion is ended when one side simply quits posting.

My question is this: should that be considered conceding the point by virtue of not wanting or being able to continue the discussion? No! Vehemently no!

It could also mean that your opponent has ceased to bring reason to the table, and that you see no further value in continuing to debate with him.

Just because you get the last word does not mean you have won. This is one of the biggest problems with electronic bulletin boards in general - it is far too easy for the unreasonable person to get the last word in, simply because the reasonable person has realized the uselessness of continuing.

[Upchurch]

So how does one determine when a debate has been won?

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
What Martin said.

Atoms obey the laws of physics. You and Martin are made of atoms. Therefore, you obey the laws of physics.

Atoms obey the laws of physics. You and Martin are made of atoms. Therefore, you obey the laws of physics.

Atoms obey the laws of physics. You and Martin are made of atoms. Therefore, you obey the laws of physics.

Atoms obey the laws of physics. You and Martin are made of atoms. Therefore, you obey the laws of physics.

Atoms obey the laws of physics. You and Martin are made of atoms. Therefore, you obey the laws of physics.

Have I won yet?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Upchurch
So how does one determine when a debate has been won?

It's very simple, actually. When I say so.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Upchurch
So how does one determine when a debate has been won? When one side's arguments have all been successfully refuted, and the other side still has at least one unrefuted argument.

[Yahweh]

... when is an arguement truely won. I would think it is when one side uses the words "I bow down to you, I will cry in dark now"... but that doesnt make the "winner" correct if they have a truely illfounded form of logic. Then again, I hear the "shut up, thats why" defense makes for a strong rebuttle.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Beleth
When one side's arguments have all been successfully refuted, and the other side still has at least one unrefuted argument. Both sides agreeing that an argument has been refuted is the same thing as one side conceding (at least on a point). This rarely, if ever, happens, does it?

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Martinm
No. There are too many people who simply repeat the same old crap over and over until the other side get sick of the discussion and quit. That does not constitute 'winning' by any stretch of the imagination.

Agreed. And it is depressing to have to refute the same 'ol stuff - over and over again.

Barkhorn.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Both sides agreeing that an argument has been refuted is the same thing as one side conceding (at least on a point). This rarely, if ever, happens, does it? It happens quite a bit, but then the debate is over, and we soon forget that it was even an issue of contention.

It's only when it doesn't happen that debates go on forever. Religion, abortion, the death penalty, Intel vs. AMD, ad nauseum. We remember these immortal debates more.

[Samus]

From what I recall in my Argumentation days, a winner is actually declared from an outsider, not one of the parties involved in the debate.

In theory, one side would present their idea of changing the status quo and why it's a good thing, and the other side would simply defend the status quo. That makes a debate easier to execute.

Here, we can have many people arguing many viewpoints on the same issue. We all agree that things ought to be different, but we can't agree how.

That said, I think objective observers can see who had the better argument, and declare a winner in their own mind. Note that the debate winner isn't necessarily "right", they just have a better argument.

[Dancing David]

We are all winners!

You are all so special in your own ways.

(UGH, gag puke)

[Thought Harvester]

Tycho at www.penny-arcade.com once said something that was pretty succinct on this issue:

“I'd had enough political and theological discussions by the time I was nineteen to figure out that they are functionally inert. No-one convinces anyone of anything, everybody just heaps their baggage on the table and gestures at it wildly.”

[thaiboxerken]

I think the believers are losers.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by dwb
From what I recall in my Argumentation days, a winner is actually declared from an outsider, not one of the parties involved in the debate.
That's how it works in formal debates. Basically, both parties or teams have to agree to a judge. Ideally, the judge is impartial, unemotional, and well acquainted with logical fallacies. Each party takes turns speaking.

So most of the intercourse on these boards doesn't even qualify as debate. There are no defined teams or sides (though individual posters tend to gravitate towards one pole or the other), there is no judge, there is no end. What we have here are garden-variety arguments.

The Flame War section was created to have one-on-one "insult matches", which were moderated and judged (by Jeff), but it was not really a debate. Perhaps we could start some threads like that though in the Flame Wars section. It even has a section called "The Cheap Seats" where non-participants can comment on the debate.

But I have to disagree with Thought Harvester. I have seen numerous people change their mind here, including myself. Ruby in particular has been growing both in confidence and stature since her arrival. Beleth too. Many others have also expressed a willingness to reconsider their positions, and my hat is off to them.

Hal, can I say "intercourse" here?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Tricky
But I have to disagree with Thought Harvester. I have seen numerous people change their mind here, including myself. Ruby in particular has been growing both in confidence and stature since her arrival. Beleth too.You just say that because you convinced me of something once!

I think that the overwhelming number of debates anywhere, not just on this board, can sadly be summarized by the sentiment Thought Harvester posted. At least, that's been my experience.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I think the believers are losers.
Boy, that's a shock.

I think people who quote themselves, complete with attribution, in their sig lines are losers. :p

Now, who is right? Who will win this debate? :p

[thaiboxerken]

Well, if it were possible to kick through this board, I would.

;)

[Thought Harvester]

I'm with you Tricky, in the sense that not everyone is completely unwilling to accept a contrary point of view. It is exceedingly rare though.

I have the utmost respect for people who can acknowledge they are wrong. Even moreso when they approach an issue / problem from the perspective that they DO NOT have all the answers. Such people often get drowned out though.

In any posting I make in any of the newsgroups / forums I contribute to, it seems as though I'm a threadkiller. I've come to the conclusion that this is because I'm not nearly controversial enough... nor do I come to the table with an iron clad set of views. Values, yes... but not views. In any case, this tends to make threads fade away ;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tricky

Perhaps we could start some threads like that though in the Flame Wars section. That's a fantastic idea! The problem would be in finding a judge that both sides could agree on.

[justsaygnosis]

In lieu of a judge perhaps a poll vote could be taken when a debate has appeared to become repetitive arguing.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Let's appeal to popularity: Every thread should start with a Pool : Did I win the debate ? (yes/no). When someone quits or both agree to finish, start the voting.

I can imagine lots of improvements, but that's the basic idea.

[Q-Source]

Can someone win a debate when the discussion is about Philosophy and Religion?

I do not think so.

Maybe winning is a matter of elaborating the best possible way your arguments, this means with logic and coherence.

I've seen here excellent posters that win with a good elaborated argument even though I do not agree with them because they are wrong (UCE for example :p )

Q-S

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Can someone win a debate when the discussion is about Philosophy and Religion?

I do not think so. I disagree. For a given set of assumptions, some things can be said to be "true" and some things can be said to be "false", even if it may not immediately obvious to start with.

There are a number of philosphical points I've had to concede on this board, so I know that I can lose a debate in Philosophy and Religion. I would only assume that someone, then, won.
;)