joe1776
Well-Known Member
I assume I can't quote someone's conservative opinion and then post my progressive opinion on the same topic since that would be an obvious implication that I disagree. Right?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Debate vs Discussion: What's the Difference?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Secret Chief
Very strong language
Yes I agree, it's all about the words we use. I just struggle with, unlike all the other words in dictionaries, this forum seems to have its own definitions for two of them.
epronovost
Well-Known Member
How the hell can you show you present evidence and arguments that show your position/view is right, but at the same time not present arguments another person's position/view is wrong. If the position of person A and B are mutually exclusive, there is no way to express your opinion and your views without presentin arguments that shows the other person is wrong. That's an absurd distinction in cases where two positions can be mutually exclusive.
You are free to disagree all you want. Just do not disagree in the spirit or fact of trying to prove the other person wrong. Whether or not your words have the effect of trying to prove the other person wrong is THE KEY ISSUE HERE.
If you quote someone and then compare and contrast your views with theirs, that's fine. If you suggest, imply, or say they are wrong, you're crossing the line.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Those sound like some truly bizarre definitions... in my opinion. So you can only post in a discussion if you agree with what's being said. If you happen to disagree and think that they're wrong you have to start a debate thread.
Basically a discussion thread is where a person says 'I want to discuss topic A.... but I ONLY want to hear from people who agree with me and won't tell me I'm wrong." Seems to me you should change the name of 'discussion' threads to 'only those who agree with me' threads.
That's a good point. In cases where you feel you absolutely must mention the other side in the context of stating that you are right and they are wrong, then it is best you reserve your thread or comments for a debate forum. We have those too.
That is, if you feel you cannot just say, "Here's my view and here's their view," without adding, "and I think my view is right and their view is wrong", then it's best not to try to discuss the matter in a discussion forum. But feel free to start a debate thread on the issue.
I'm sorry my OP was not clear enough for you to understand it. I don't know how I could make it any clearer though. You might want to stick to debate forums if you do not understand discussion forums any better than you do.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
In my opinion, your list needs to be modified in the following ways:
YOU CAN...
- State your position, views, and opinions... As long as your position views and opinions don't suggest that what someone else posted is wrong.
- Ask respectful questions of other members about their own positions, views, and opinions... As long as your position views and opinions don't suggest that what someone else posted is wrong.
- Respectfully discuss your position, views, and opinions with other members... As long as your position views and opinions don't suggest that what someone else posted is wrong.
- Compare and contrast your position, views, and opinions with those of other member's positions, views, and opinions, but only for the purpose -- and in the spirit of -- clarification... And only as long as your position views and opinions don't suggest that what someone else posted is wrong.
- Give reasons and evidence to show your reasoning, or to show you are right... As long as your position views and opinions don't suggest that what someone else posted is wrong.
YOU CANNOT...
- Try to show that another member's positions, views, and opinions are wrong.
epronovost
Well-Known Member
"and I think my view is right and their view is wrong" is applied by necessity in the case two views are mutually exclusive. I don't see any difference between textually adding it or not. It's obvious you think they are wrong if you hold a completely opposite and mutually exclusive position. it seems to me that your "discussion" threads cannot suffer from direct opposition and can only involve people who at least accept a large portion of the OP's opinion (or it concerns a subject to trivial and subjective that any debate revolves around subjective experience of something like if a particular movie was enjoyable).
My posts. I compost all of them. I figure since they have no educational value, at least they'll somehow otherwise be useful. Y'know, like manure.
The only reason they have no educational value, Salix, is because this is RF. No one on RF ever listens with comprehension and understanding to anyone else. It is not against the rules to do so, it is merely considered unfashionable and a faux pas. Or at least, that's why I myself never listen to anyone so as to actually understand them.
Interesting take on it. Thank you for bringing that up. I think many people might agree with you, so it needs to be addressed.
I suppose if your position were indeed true, then you cannot say, "To me, the butterfly looks red" and I cannot respond, "To me, it looks yellow", without my thereby also meaning, "And I conclude you must be wrong, rather than me." In other words, I cannot say, "I'm not sure who is right and who is wrong" for to do so would contradict your belief that "it's obvious you think they are wrong if you hold a completely obvious and mutually exclusive position".
In all sincerity, you have a razor sharp mind, Epronovost, but you have not convinced me in this case of your point.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Wouldn't that be implied if someone expressed a contrary opinion? When you assert it's UP, with reasoning or evidence, and I assert it's DOWN, with reasoning or evidence, it's implied in my opinion that you're wrong. Isn't it?
.
Skwim
Veteran Member
You know, this happens from time to time, particularly in the longer threads. The original subject will have run its course in generating interest and some other issue will take its place. Personally, I have no problem when this happens with any thread I create. If people are no longer interested in the subject I brought up, so be it. And if they want to continue using the thread to talk about something else, where's the harm? Although they may have had a wider response by starting a new thread, but that's their decision.
.
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
Came across the following a moment ago, which may or may not be informative.
That said, I still don't think it addresses the problem I think the moderators and administrators are grappling with: How do we more easily differentiate between the two so as to better keep threads in line. And perhaps there isn't an easy way. I guess it will all depend on how much energy it's worth.
Debate and Discussion
1. Main Concern
When it comes to debate and discussion, the difference breaks down into openness of the participants.
Debaters aren’t there to be open, they are there to win.
By contrast, people participating in a discussion are usually open to one another’s opinions, and there is a chance the opinions can be changed in a discussion. This is not the case for debates.
2. Winning vs Learning
In a debate, each participant wants to be seen as the “winner.” Debaters will often act as if they are winning during every step of the debate, even if they are not. Part of the debate is being a performer.
Discussions, however, depend on listening and learning — not winning. Someone doesn’t “win” a discussion, but rather both sides learn from one another.
3. Looking vs Listening
Debate participants are always looking for the next time they can make their point known, or to outsmart their proponent. Instead of listening for information absorption and expanding horizons, debaters are listening for inconsistencies and parts with which to argue.
In a discussion however, each party actively listens to one another, reflecting on what is being said and how it might work or not work with their own experiences, knowledge or truths.
4. Changing Direction vs Authenticity
During a debate, when a debater struggles with a topic or with an argument, they have likely been taught to steer away, back to familiar territory. This puts the debater back in control and onto the “winning” side.
Discussions will have a more authentic flow of topics, as the discussion won’t make sense if participants suddenly change the direction of the conversation.
source
1. Main Concern
When it comes to debate and discussion, the difference breaks down into openness of the participants.
Debaters aren’t there to be open, they are there to win.
By contrast, people participating in a discussion are usually open to one another’s opinions, and there is a chance the opinions can be changed in a discussion. This is not the case for debates.
2. Winning vs Learning
In a debate, each participant wants to be seen as the “winner.” Debaters will often act as if they are winning during every step of the debate, even if they are not. Part of the debate is being a performer.
Discussions, however, depend on listening and learning — not winning. Someone doesn’t “win” a discussion, but rather both sides learn from one another.
3. Looking vs Listening
Debate participants are always looking for the next time they can make their point known, or to outsmart their proponent. Instead of listening for information absorption and expanding horizons, debaters are listening for inconsistencies and parts with which to argue.
In a discussion however, each party actively listens to one another, reflecting on what is being said and how it might work or not work with their own experiences, knowledge or truths.
4. Changing Direction vs Authenticity
During a debate, when a debater struggles with a topic or with an argument, they have likely been taught to steer away, back to familiar territory. This puts the debater back in control and onto the “winning” side.
Discussions will have a more authentic flow of topics, as the discussion won’t make sense if participants suddenly change the direction of the conversation.
source
Last edited:
Secret Chief
Very strong language
Yes.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Oldbadger's grasp of all this:-
DIR: I keep right out of all these forums.
Debate: I can be a bit more aggressive.
Discussion: I must be much much more polite.
I can't remember anything more complex, so please forgive my lack of any more detail..... it would only confuse me.
DIR: I keep right out of all these forums.
Debate: I can be a bit more aggressive.
Discussion: I must be much much more polite.
I can't remember anything more complex, so please forgive my lack of any more detail..... it would only confuse me.
Secret Chief
Very strong language
Which one/s is/are OK for passive aggression?Oldbadger's grasp of all this:-
DIR: I keep right out of all these forums.
Debate: I can be a bit more aggressive.
Discussion: I must be much much more polite.
I can't remember anything more complex, so please forgive my lack of any more detail..... it would only confuse me.
There's no real harm to it, but if a thread shifts to another topic and goes sour, they might shut it down, and it could be unfair to those who actually wanted to stick to the original topic.
Skwim
Veteran Member
I can't ever remember having a thread shut down because it went off (original) topic. But then I don't have the best memory either.
.
Last edited: