well lightie (sorry but that's in fun now, hope it's ok to have some fun 😊), but what the poster is saying is still different from some of the perspective you adopted. their's was more a debator's perspective, yours more a silent person's. since it does not take much energy expenditure to be a silent participant in any field, street fights included, i am not sure listing their myriad reasons for reading/ watching will be particularly relevant or helpful IMO. am again not saying they dont happen to have their reasons, just that i dont think throwing a book of reasons always reflects prioritized value-add.
also, it is possible for debators to engage WITHOUT the presence of an audience. dont we get into debates one-to-one with others? dont we play chess with just another player even if no one is watching? so that's the perspective i find more important- why do people do so in the first place, burning up all that energy and time, people without whom the audience becomes irrelevant. remember- the audience has very little vested anyway, but what interests me is why the active types make that investment of time and energy.
why do we do so? it can be for some of the reasons the original poster came up with. but i also think it has to do with addiction (which oddly enuff you yourself suggested in another context), fun, and just a desire to bring the other guy to your side. dont know that most people actually debate because they want to learn, though there are some like that and though that might be an unintended outcome.
hope this makes more sense?😊
I havent been very active in DM recently but once I was quoted, I felt it was a good enough reason to come back into it for a little while.😊
IMO its an unfair comment to make that people dont debate to learn, I debate to learn, and I constantly debate online, in person, in school, in family gatherings, always. I read debates that I am not a part of to learn, because while i might mot have an opinion on many things I do like to see what all the brouhaha is about. There is so much that we dont know and there are so many people in this world who know nothing but will get up and argue a point, so rather than becoming one of those people I debate to learn so I could be a better, more rational, more logical person who is not prejudiced or biased due to ignorance. So yes people do debate to learn.
Learning is possible even in one-on-one debates since your opponent might know things and argue logically using facts and reasons so you can actually learn. unless you are speaking to imbeciles in which case u shudnt be debating with them.😉 But I debate with people I believe are intelligent and can function logically so I keep my mind open to what they have to say in order to learn because they might be aware of something I am not. As much as it pains me to admit, I dont know everything.😭😆
Yes of course in debates you wish the other person to come to your side, but most logical individuals do realize that is not always possible, especiallly in issues regarding religion and such. So we share our POVs in hope to promote tolerance and educate others so they dont succumb to bigotry which is fueled by ignorance and stereotypes. People debate to let others undersrtand even if they will never agree.
haha, am glad you found something worthwhile there to quote. silent reading does pay off i suppose?😉😉😉
incidentally, so haha and laughter is out as a valid form of expression? 😕 i suppose debates are just dead-pan expressions?😛😆 and you decide what is appropriate and what's not?😉
it just bothered me that you said your haha's were perfectly fine, yes laughing is fine in debates but not laughing at what others have to say. you can think that the other person is wrong but that doesnt give u the right to ridicule the person or their views. you shud try to convince the other person of your thinking and if u can tthen u cant, that doesnt mean u get to make fun of them. i mean only those that dont have an argument, try to laugh off another's argument. And yes there is a debating etiquette and this is the socially accepted one and hasnt been created by lighthouse.😉 Unfortunately most people who argue or love to argue dont follow it. People dont realize there is a difference in arguing and debating. Debating is done by knowledgeable individuals who try to convey their point rationally and logically and keep an open mind and listen to what the other person has to say and not ridicule but prove wrong their analysis, point by point. Arguing is what most people do, ridicule another's argument or call them names or call them a heretic or irreligious or whatever will make this individual's come off right without having valid points to back up their argument. So yes haha is a good enough for arguing but by contemporary debating standards its not.😊
I havent been very active in DM recently but once I was quoted, I felt it was a good enough reason to come back into it for a little while.😊
IMO its an unfair comment to make that people dont debate to learn, I debate to learn, and I constantly debate online, in person, in school, in family gatherings, always. I read debates that I am not a part of to learn, because while i might mot have an opinion on many things I do like to see what all the brouhaha is about. There is so much that we dont know and there are so many people in this world who know nothing but will get up and argue a point, so rather than becoming one of those people I debate to learn so I could be a better, more rational, more logical person who is not prejudiced or biased due to ignorance. So yes people do debate to learn.
Learning is possible even in one-on-one debates since your opponent might know things and argue logically using facts and reasons so you can actually learn. unless you are speaking to imbeciles in which case u shudnt be debating with them.😉 But I debate with people I believe are intelligent and can function logically so I keep my mind open to what they have to say in order to learn because they might be aware of something I am not. As much as it pains me to admit, I dont know everything.😭😆
Yes of course in debates you wish the other person to come to your side, but most logical individuals do realize that is not always possible, especiallly in issues regarding religion and such. So we share our POVs in hope to promote tolerance and educate others so they dont succumb to bigotry which is fueled by ignorance and stereotypes. People debate to let others undersrtand even if they will never agree.
you are misquoting me. i never stated that learning is not a part of it, just that it's not the dominant force in why most people who engage in debates do so IMO. i am not stupid to realize that everyone has their own reasons, ranging from chatting to simply trying to make friends (as was stated before by someone) to whatever drives their fancy, and that there are always exceptions to everything.
but rather than get an entire book of reasons handed down, i was hoping to prioritize in some manner. that i think is considered interpretive "value-add' in various circles. the other kind of listing IMO is raw data/ noise. sorry if this may sound harsh, and hopefully this will not be considered directed at anyone, but that's what we learn when we are in kindergarten- throwing the book back at the teach without able to discriminate amongst various choices. if someone needs further substantation on this latter point, i'll try to find something for them😊
and a lot of my argument in the first place was relating to "why debate", not "why read". hope that is clear as well?😉
ps. of course, what i have are my priorities or my understanding of most people's priorities. one can feel free to disagree.😊
well lightie (sorry but that's in fun now, hope it's ok to have some fun 😊), but what the poster is saying is still different from some of the perspective you adopted. their's was more a debator's perspective, yours more a silent person's. since it does not take much energy expenditure to be a silent participant in any field, street fights included, i am not sure listing their myriad reasons for reading/ watching will be particularly relevant or helpful IMO. am again not saying they dont happen to have their reasons, just that i dont think throwing a book of reasons always reflects prioritized value-add.
also, it is possible for debators to engage WITHOUT the presence of an audience. dont we get into debates one-to-one with others? dont we play chess with just another player even if no one is watching? so that's the perspective i find more important- why do people do so in the first place, burning up all that energy and time, people without whom the audience becomes irrelevant. remember- the audience has very little vested anyway, but what interests me is why the active types make that investment of time and energy.
why do we do so? it can be for some of the reasons the original poster came up with. but i also think it has to do with addiction (which oddly enuff you yourself suggested in another context), fun, and just a desire to bring the other guy to your side. dont know that most people actually debate because they want to learn, though there are some like that and though that might be an unintended outcome.
hope this makes more sense?😊
Are Rahul..😛 From Haha to Lightie. 👍🏼 . Much better.😳 I think you learned something. 😆
Seriously , there isn't any one specific primary reason for different ppl to invest time and energy in participating in debates or expressing their views. I consider even silent readers to be participants because they are spending time and doing self introspection by agreeing or not in their own minds which is more like what one does when watching a game of chess being played. Watching a street fight or tamasha does not involve any soul searching or re-examining ones beliefs.
The problem I had was the comparision you made of watching debates to watching street fighting and that is plain wrong IMO.
I feel that some of the valid reasons why anyone would spend time debating are Instant gratification (whatever that may be), Rage to master which is intense focus on specific interests or goals resulting in the state of mental immersion called "flow," which in turn elicits feelings of accomplishment and well-being or just plain old curiosity to explore and learn more about something.
Rahul I really had fun debating you which made me explore and learn more about the subject and myself.😃 😳
it just bothered me that you said your haha's were perfectly fine, yes laughing is fine in debates but not laughing at what others have to say. you can think that the other person is wrong but that doesnt give u the right to ridicule the person or their views. you shud try to convince the other person of your thinking and if u can tthen u cant, that doesnt mean u get to make fun of them. i mean only those that dont have an argument, try to laugh off another's argument. And yes there is a debating etiquette and this is the socially accepted one and hasnt been created by lighthouse.😉 Unfortunately most people who argue or love to argue dont follow it. People dont realize there is a difference in arguing and debating. Debating is done by knowledgeable individuals who try to convey their point rationally and logically and keep an open mind and listen to what the other person has to say and not ridicule but prove wrong their analysis, point by point. Arguing is what most people do, ridicule another's argument or call them names or call them a heretic or irreligious or whatever will make this individual's come off right without having valid points to back up their argument. So yes haha is a good enough for arguing but by contemporary debating standards its not.😊
haha,so winkies are also out now? after all, they're not exactly socially acceptable, or are they? i certainly dont find a lot of respectable women use them in real life but then i could be wrong.😛
also, as you sit and write your stuff, can you be sure whether my "hahas" are not actually more light-hearted than the mocking you made them out to be? simple stuff is misread and misunderstood, yet you can be so sure your interpretation of something i use almost in emoticon-style is correct?
fwiw, i'd rather have some of the laughter than the quotes preaching tolerance that never get practiced.😊
btw, getting back to topic, all i've seen as rebuttal to the arguments i had were personal throw-backs. lemme know if there's something i missed😉
Are Rahul..😛 From Haha to Lightie. 👍🏼 . Much better.😳 I think you learned something. 😆
Seriously , there isn't any one specific primary reason for different ppl to invest time and energy in participating in debates or expressing their views. I consider even silent readers to be participants because they are spending time and doing self introspection by agreeing or not in their own minds which is more like what one does when watching a game of chess being played. Watching a street fight or tamasha does not involve any soul searching or re-examining ones beliefs.
The problem I had was the comparision you made of watching debates to watching street fighting and that is plain wrong IMO.
I feel that some of the valid reasons why anyone would spend time debating are Instant gratification (whatever that may be), Rage to master which is intense focus on specific interests or goals resulting in the state of mental immersion called "flow," which in turn elicits feelings of accomplishment and well-being or just plain old curiosity to explore and learn more about something.
Rahul I really had fun debating you which made me explore and learn more about the subject and myself.😃 😳
haha, and it's back to hahas now for a while😆
but seriously then everyone is a participant in your grand scheme of things. even the butterfly which flutters its wings could be thoeretically found to cause a hurricane on the other side of the world, and be a participant. why then bother to prioritize our reasoning?
the crux still remains that people can engage in debates without an audience, not the other way around. so the perspective of the active participant is perhaps more note-worthy IMO. but i've said that before and i suppose there's nothing to be gained reiterating that if we dont want to talk about it.
haha, and it's back to hahas now for a while😆
😡 👎🏼 😭 🥺 🤬 ... whatever.....
but seriously then everyone is a participant in your grand scheme of things. even the butterfly which flutters its wings could be thoeretically found to cause a hurricane on the other side of the world, and be a participant. why then bother to prioritize our reasoning?
and what ID does the said butterfly use on the forum? 😕 I had like to send a PM . 😆
the crux still remains that people can engage in debates without an audience, not the other way around. so the perspective of the active participant is perhaps more note-worthy IMO. but i've said that before and i suppose there's nothing to be gained reiterating that if we dont want to talk about it.
So what you are saying is that the debates are like some sports competition where participants want to have fun and beat up the other guy and declare him/herself the winner? .😕
haha, there's some dusty old id one might be able to find- goes under the general heading of "chaos theory".😛
what i am saying is that the answer to "why debate" is not the same as "why read silently". and the topic had more to do with "why debate".
rest of what you have there is incomplete characterization of my position. do read the fine volumes i already churned out to get the picture in full tecnicolor.😆
incidentally, i think one gets closer to the answer if one uses the analogy of "why play chess", which is not the same as "why watch a chess game"? and the answer to that IMO is mostly that people have fun playing chess, are addicted to it, get a good rush every time they crush the other guy, to get higher FIDE rankings. that it would "improve their game" and provide "learning" is a side-benefit, but people dont take up chess just for the heck of improving their game, though that might be a cute answer to give the chess instructor. without the benefits listed, one wld probably never bother to invest all that time and energy in the first place. something's usually gotta be fun or have payoffs beyond simple learning if we are taking it up as a hobby, much as is the case here with debates. if learning is all what it's about, then the time can be better spent elsewhere IMO- schools, public speaking/ writing courses etc. and not in palming off addictive behavior as learning behavior😊
haha, there's some dusty old id one might be able to find- goes under the general heading of "chaos theory".😛
Stay focused on the debate here. Why bring butterflies and ludicrous theories to avoid answering the real issues. They sound good in a sales pitch or some how to over analysize and dodge the question class.
what i am saying is that the answer to "why debate" is not the same as "why read silently". and the topic had more to do with "why debate".
Fine...
rest of what you have there is incomplete characterization of my position. do read the fine volumes i already churned out to get the picture in full tecnicolor.😆
I am not here to read volumes of some abstract theories knowledge you are so willing to impart. We are talking about real issues here and DM members have validated before why they like to debate.
incidentally, i think one gets closer to the answer if one uses the analogy of "why play chess", which is not the same as "why watch a chess game"? and the answer to that IMO is mostly that people have fun playing chess, are addicted to it, get a good rush every time they crush the other guy, to get higher FIDE rankings. that it would "improve their game" and provide "learning" is a side-benefit, but people dont take up chess just for the heck of improving their game, though that might be a cute answer to give the chess instructor. without the benefits listed, one wld probably never bother to invest all that time and energy in the first place. something's usually gotta be fun or have payoffs beyond simple learning if we are taking it up as a hobby, much as is the case here with debates. if learning is all what it's about, then the time can be better spent elsewhere IMO- schools, public speaking/ writing courses etc. and not in palming off addictive behavior as learning behavior😊
Fine.. We know you know how to play chess... So let's get to the real issue that I had when you compared debates to street fights and Tamasha. Explain your reasoning for using street fight and tamasha example please.
