Jagella

Ah—I have the same motive. I’m open enough to listen to whatever reasons people may have to believe whatever they do.

Same here. It would be stupid of me to reject good reasoning or evidence.

It’s what you might call “intellectual dishonesty.�

Jagella

Jagella

I used to take that route, but these days I’m not out to “beat� anybody in a debate. I simply want to get to the truth of the matter, and if that involves my being proved wrong, then so be it.

In any case, I applaud your confidence in your intellectual superiority. What intellectual achievements of your own can you tell us about? Degrees, awards, discoveries?

Jagella

Amedeo

It is quite true that debating, seen in terms of being challenged, is a means for gaining knowledge.Any Socratic dialogue in general (that can turn into a debate) stimulates understanding, excogitations, enlightenment.

Proving one's own intellectual superiority CANNOT be the reason why one debates or litigates a case in court, because what one can prove about himself in a debate or litigation is the skill or art of debating. For instance, a lawyer has ways of discrediting proffered evidence [-- the blood-stained glove does not fit the defendant's hand... who inserts his hand in a certain way]. This is shrewdness or strategic thinking, for the intellectual ability to destroy evidence is not due to shrewdness but to the insight into the deficiency, weakness, or even irrelevance of the presented so-called evidence. Again, in many debates about creationism and evolutionism, some people systematically crtiticise the opponent's position (thereby denying the validity of the opponent's position) by pointing out that, for instance, evolution is a true account of nature [or astronomy is a true account of the heavenly bodies] and that this account is an answer to the issue which is being debated. So, a creationist's position is FALSE. (This really means "incorrect" or "not complying with the teachings of evolution.") The man has not attacked the opponent's position and found it to be false or fallacious; he wins the debate by default. This is a shrewd move (which logic makers brand "sophistic" or deceptive), a technique to discredit the opponen't position or evidence, but shrewdness is not an indicator of intellectual superiority [namely insight, understanding, which dull minds don't have]. The winning of a debate or litigation case does not prove at all that the loser has a dull mind and that the winner has intellectual superiority.

Jagella

Very good! I also take into consideration the opinions of others to see if they are correct. Wouldn't it be sheer idiocy to be so arrogant that you continue to believe something that isn't true?

Jagella

Clivedurdle

I debate to try and clarify thinking, not ping pong but to attempt a synthesis of something. I don't mind if along the way I pull someone into the EAC and persuade them that eating kittens is OK!

Amedeo

`
The reson you just gave why you debate actually defines a type of debate: It is part of what used to be called "Socratic or philosophic DIALOGUE." Much of what happen in this Forum is verbal litigation, which the ancients used to call a battle of words (or LOGOMACHY). It's good to bear in mind the species of ARGUMENTATION: Philosophic Dialogue (which aims at clarification, true knowledge, etc.), Logomachy, Formal Debate, and (litigation) Argumentation.

spin

Yoo-hoo, moderators, are you listening up there?

Yeah, you, that's right. Good. Sorry to disturb you and all that, but why do I get the idea that this thread mainly doesn't have a fig to do with BC&H?

Again, apologies, and let me grovel a bit to make up for it.


yfs


spin

Toto

Some posts have been split off here

makebate dags

Why do I debate? I want to know.

- d r i f t

Will I Am

Perhaps for some people, it's simply a question of wanting the Truth, as they see it, to be told.

Could be a simple as that. For some people.