QUOTE(Curmudgeon @ Jun 14 2010, 01:29 PM)
Resolved: This is a debate site, not the United States Senate. We should be able to keep our minds open, listen to the arguments being made; and if possible, refute them with facts. If the facts support one side more than the other; we should be allowed to act like a juror, listen to the facts and the evidence and change our minds.
I thought the above was a clear challenge.
Oh, I thought it was, at best, a comment - at worst, a slight. To say, "Resolved:
" doesn't really sound like a challenge to me, it sounds like, well... something more resolute
- a tad, ironic, I think, no?
In a formal debate, you either support the proposed resolution with facts and arguments, or you oppose the resolution with facts and arguments..
There are any number of websites out there that provide Parliamentary rules for debate, International rules for debate, etc.
Okay, I get all this.
The "argument" that "we already agree to disagree" sounds to me more like the partisanship that currently exists in the U.S. Senate. Is what you really want to accomplish, simply to have endless "arguments" in which everyone has agreed that no common ground can be found?
No. And that isn't what that statement should sound like if taken in context of what was occurring in the thread with the person to which I made the statement. That person was taking a position that they didn't care, but, with regard to the issue of the ban, that, ultimately, if the airlines didn't do it themselves, the government should - an affirmative answer to the question for debate. My position was that the shouldn't and explained why it was unnecessary for it to do so... rather than refute that, the person simply said... with regard to government involvement... let's just agree to disagree. And I'm thinking, "Umm... that was the question for debate... you don't want to address the question for debate, you simply want to 'agree to disagree'... without really dealing with it? Just going to take a position and not support it?" And I know I wasn't the only person informing her that she wasn't really dealing with the question for debate - others were pointing that out as well.
So, excuse me, but, if you're claiming that my remark was an example of how the quality of debate has been slipping, I also have to chuckle at the irony of that
Granted, the statement was a play on the use of the well known phrase, "let's agree to disagree"... but, I like to do that - it's fun; and, the take on the phrase works: at the outset
- if you enter into a debate and take a position contrary to that of another... you are both their voluntarily; you are both taking a position - both saying - at the outset
I disagree with you and you disagree with me. If you didn't agree to disagree
, as it were, you wouldn't be in the debate, taking contrary positions in the first place. And I didn't simply leave it at that single statement. I said, if you make a statement I don't agree with, I will challenge it.
I am certainly open to be wrong and have conceded points in debates, many times, in fact. I have learned quite a bit and been corrected quite a bit on this site over the years.
But, simply saying, 'here's my unsupported position with regard to the actual
question for debate and it's contrary to yours... let's just agree to disagree.' How is that considered keeping one's "mind open"? That isn't even debate.
try to work toward a resolution, toward the truth - not always as concisely - and certainly not as eloquently - as I'd like, but I do. That's why I'm here.