Do You Take No Longer Responding to a Debate as Conceding a Point?

[Debater Slayer]

Throughout my 13 and a half years on RF, I have occasionally noticed that some people assume that if they have the last word in a debate, or if the other person stops responding, then the person who has the last word is the "winner" of the debate—the idea being that not responding necessarily means conceding an opposing argument.

Do you think this is the case, though? For instance, I have seen people stop responding due to being busy, not finding it worthwhile or productive to repeat themselves, making their points and not wishing to debate or try to convince anyone else, etc. I have sometimes stopped responding in debates for one or more of these reasons, myself, and nowadays, I rarely have the time, inclination, or energy to get into long debates that span a few or more pages.

Furthermore, I think it's productive to test one's ideas in debate and also read other arguments and perspectives rather than join debates to "win" or try to "prove" one's views even if trying to do so takes pages and pages of arguing back and forth. Even when one may have a point they want to share or they see something they wish to clarify—such as a claim they perceive to be highly inaccurate or even harmful—I have come to believe that debating for many pages has diminishing returns and rarely adds more clarity beyond the first few or several posts.

I have added a poll out of curiosity. I voted no: I don't think that no longer responding to a debate usually means someone has conceded a point, and I would rather not assume that this is why someone has stopped responding. Occasionally, it may mean that, but I have found that most of the time, people stop responding for any number of other reasons.

 

[Secret Chief]

There can be various reasons, of course.
Personally, I don't think in terms of conceding or points. But then the whole idea of a debate is rather alien to me.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Hah! Many replies to posts here are made by ignorant trolls. So, NO.

I mean, there are many nice, thoughtful people here. But most posts are depressingly ignorant.

IMHO

 

[ChristineM]

I don't do much debate, and of those i to join I'll often drop out because i find the others arguments depressing, sickening or just so far of the mark there is no point in continuing.

Have i lost in that situation? I don't think so and i give others that same consideration.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I would be very surprised to see anything other than "no" votes.

 

[Nakosis]

Throughout my 13 and a half years on RF, I have occasionally noticed that some people assume that if they have the last word in a debate, or if the other person stops responding, then the person who has the last word is the "winner" of the debate—the idea being that not responding necessarily means conceding an opposing argument.

Do you think this is the case, though? For instance, I have seen people stop responding due to being busy, not finding it worthwhile or productive to repeat themselves, making their points and not wishing to debate or try to convince anyone else, etc. I have sometimes stopped responding in debates for one or more of these reasons, myself, and nowadays, I rarely have the time, inclination, or energy to get into long debates that span a few or more pages.

Furthermore, I think it's productive to test one's ideas in debate and also read other arguments and perspectives rather than join debates to "win" or try to "prove" one's views even if trying to do so takes pages and pages of arguing back and forth. Even when one may have a point they want to share or they see something they wish to clarify—such as a claim they perceive to be highly inaccurate or even harmful—I have come to believe that debating for many pages has diminishing returns and rarely adds more clarity beyond the first few or several posts.

I have added a poll out of curiosity. I voted no: I don't think that no longer responding to a debate usually means someone has conceded a point, and I would rather not assume that this is why someone has stopped responding. Occasionally, it may mean that, but I have found that most of the time, people stop responding for any number of other reasons.

I take it as a win, generally except when I do it, it is definitely not a loss.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I would be very surprised to see anything other than "no" votes.

How come?

 

[Regiomontanus]

I would be very surprised to see anything other than "no" votes.

I agree, because (especially in political debates) often the opponent (here on RF) is an ignorant fool.

life is too short.

 

[Stevicus]

Throughout my 13 and a half years on RF, I have occasionally noticed that some people assume that if they have the last word in a debate, or if the other person stops responding, then the person who has the last word is the "winner" of the debate—the idea being that not responding necessarily means conceding an opposing argument.

Do you think this is the case, though? For instance, I have seen people stop responding due to being busy, not finding it worthwhile or productive to repeat themselves, making their points and not wishing to debate or try to convince anyone else, etc. I have sometimes stopped responding in debates for one or more of these reasons, myself, and nowadays, I rarely have the time, inclination, or energy to get into long debates that span a few or more pages.

Furthermore, I think it's productive to test one's ideas in debate and also read other arguments and perspectives rather than join debates to "win" or try to "prove" one's views even if trying to do so takes pages and pages of arguing back and forth. Even when one may have a point they want to share or they see something they wish to clarify—such as a claim they perceive to be highly inaccurate or even harmful—I have come to believe that debating for many pages has diminishing returns and rarely adds more clarity beyond the first few or several posts.

I have added a poll out of curiosity. I voted no: I don't think that no longer responding to a debate usually means someone has conceded a point, and I would rather not assume that this is why someone has stopped responding. Occasionally, it may mean that, but I have found that most of the time, people stop responding for any number of other reasons.

I think it depends on the context of what the debate is about and the level of significance/importance of the issue (which is often in the eye of the beholder).

Sometimes, it's also a matter of presentation, determining the "winner" by how well they stated their case. Sometimes, I might watch a debate on TV and see someone who takes a side I agree with, but just isn't as good at debating or presenting their case in a very effective way. It might appear that if the person had just brushed up better or did a better job, they might have won the debate. So, in that sense, just because one might "win" the debate doesn't mean they're "right," or that their position is the "correct" position to take.

In internet forums which are mostly text-based, it's more an informal setting where it's not really set up like a formal debate with rules, a pre-arranged format, and a panel of judges to determine the winner. It's just people talking, coming and going as they please. Multiple people chime in, so it becomes more of a free-for-all and not really any kind of actual "debate."

Of course, that doesn't mean it's total anarchy as most internet forums have rules about civility and online behavior to keep things from getting too far out of hand. For some of the more controversial issues, tempers might flare up, and I can see where some people might just decide it's not worth getting all riled up over.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Throughout my 13 and a half years on RF, I have occasionally noticed that some people assume that if they have the last word in a debate, or if the other person stops responding, then the person who has the last word is the "winner" of the debate—the idea being that not responding necessarily means conceding an opposing argument.

Do you think this is the case, though? For instance, I have seen people stop responding due to being busy, not finding it worthwhile or productive to repeat themselves, making their points and not wishing to debate or try to convince anyone else, etc. I have sometimes stopped responding in debates for one or more of these reasons, myself, and nowadays, I rarely have the time, inclination, or energy to get into long debates that span a few or more pages.

Furthermore, I think it's productive to test one's ideas in debate and also read other arguments and perspectives rather than join debates to "win" or try to "prove" one's views even if trying to do so takes pages and pages of arguing back and forth. Even when one may have a point they want to share or they see something they wish to clarify—such as a claim they perceive to be highly inaccurate or even harmful—I have come to believe that debating for many pages has diminishing returns and rarely adds more clarity beyond the first few or several posts.

I have added a poll out of curiosity. I voted no: I don't think that no longer responding to a debate usually means someone has conceded a point, and I would rather not assume that this is why someone has stopped responding. Occasionally, it may mean that, but I have found that most of the time, people stop responding for any number of other reasons.

I answered "no." I think most of the time, people abandon a debate when they are finally bored with answering the same unsupported assertions, only to know that they'll be asserted again, and again without support.

On another forum, some years ago, I instituted a real debate sub-forum, where a moderator had power to enforce the rules, and where the only participants were the debaters themselves. In order to keep the rest of the forum involved, we had what I liked to call the "Bleachers." There was one Bleachers associated with each formal debate. We also set up rules, like length of posts in words, opening statements, closing statement, how many rebuttals, how long between responses, and so forth. Having to work within the rules kept debaters themselves interested.

Sadly, most people would still rather just rant whenever and wherever they want, so they didn't last long, and there were not many members who were interested in debating another member on a given topic.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How come?

If I believe that no longer responding is equivalent to conceding the point, I compel myself to pursuing an interchange that I may deem wholly worthless. We may argue the comparative merits of heavy metal versus coloratura soprano for days on end but, sooner or later, I'll leave you to your noise as I sit back and listen to Tales of Hoffman -- conceding nothing.

 

[Soandso]

The only people who can decide on the winners and losers in a debate are the observers, not the participants

Anyone who thinks they argue the opposition into silence is deluding themselves. We all have lives outside of this place and are here for our own entertainment. When more worthwhile or fun distractions present themselves, we move on

 

[F1fan]

Many debates aren't even arguable, meaning there is one side that is just factually incorrect and there's no way they can win. This can be someone claiming the earth is 6000 years old, or claiming Trump doesn't lie. These are ideological claims and these people can't be defeated in the sense that they can be made to understand their errors of judgment.

So we do argue against such positions and explain how these beliefs are factually incorrect, and we are entertained.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Throughout my 13 and a half years on RF, I have occasionally noticed that some people assume that if they have the last word in a debate, or if the other person stops responding, then the person who has the last word is the "winner" of the debate—the idea being that not responding necessarily means conceding an opposing argument.

Do you think this is the case, though? For instance, I have seen people stop responding due to being busy, not finding it worthwhile or productive to repeat themselves, making their points and not wishing to debate or try to convince anyone else, etc. I have sometimes stopped responding in debates for one or more of these reasons, myself, and nowadays, I rarely have the time, inclination, or energy to get into long debates that span a few or more pages.

Furthermore, I think it's productive to test one's ideas in debate and also read other arguments and perspectives rather than join debates to "win" or try to "prove" one's views even if trying to do so takes pages and pages of arguing back and forth. Even when one may have a point they want to share or they see something they wish to clarify—such as a claim they perceive to be highly inaccurate or even harmful—I have come to believe that debating for many pages has diminishing returns and rarely adds more clarity beyond the first few or several posts.

I have added a poll out of curiosity. I voted no: I don't think that no longer responding to a debate usually means someone has conceded a point, and I would rather not assume that this is why someone has stopped responding. Occasionally, it may mean that, but I have found that most of the time, people stop responding for any number of other reasons.

Sometimes a question asked or statement is just not worth the time to answer it because it's either loaded or it's just intentionally asked to just waste my time. I have absolutely no issue with not responding to what I think are tactics and redundant repeated demands to answer that is intentionally meant to frustrate or overwhelm a person that can easily be answered by the questioner themselves or the readers of a post through another means. If I gave an answer , then I gave my answer, and if they don't like it they can just live with it.

If I do find it valuable enough, I will answer it and if the person keeps thinking I didn't answer the way they liked, I'll just leave it hanging like that because if they don't like my answer already, then it's completely their problem from that point on and would suggest they look for someone else.

If I feel in the mood for Dharma combat, I will answer to my respondent even if it's nonsense to me.

People should know already that I don't concede my point unless I actually say I conceded, but i don't care if they brag they won however, because people who read the post have their own minds and opinions as to who came out ahead and either way is fine with me.

My point is I'll state what I think that matters, and I'm quite happy with that as an end in itself. Basically, I'm satisfied I had said my piece, and I'm quite happy with that and feel no compulsion to answer further unless I feel it's warranted.

 

[Brickjectivity]

These are informal debates, so if anything its a very easy way to avoid nasty bait traps and also trolls or both. Besides I don't want to be part of a 5 person team debating 1. If other people are arguing I may simply walk away.

I take annoyance with some very long multi page discussions with no outcome or concession from either side. I get no joy from it. Must be my attitude. A lot of people love it.

 

[Heyo]

Throughout my 13 and a half years on RF, I have occasionally noticed that some people assume that if they have the last word in a debate, or if the other person stops responding, then the person who has the last word is the "winner" of the debate—the idea being that not responding necessarily means conceding an opposing argument.

Do you think this is the case, though? For instance, I have seen people stop responding due to being busy, not finding it worthwhile or productive to repeat themselves, making their points and not wishing to debate or try to convince anyone else, etc. I have sometimes stopped responding in debates for one or more of these reasons, myself, and nowadays, I rarely have the time, inclination, or energy to get into long debates that span a few or more pages.

Furthermore, I think it's productive to test one's ideas in debate and also read other arguments and perspectives rather than join debates to "win" or try to "prove" one's views even if trying to do so takes pages and pages of arguing back and forth. Even when one may have a point they want to share or they see something they wish to clarify—such as a claim they perceive to be highly inaccurate or even harmful—I have come to believe that debating for many pages has diminishing returns and rarely adds more clarity beyond the first few or several posts.

I have added a poll out of curiosity. I voted no: I don't think that no longer responding to a debate usually means someone has conceded a point, and I would rather not assume that this is why someone has stopped responding. Occasionally, it may mean that, but I have found that most of the time, people stop responding for any number of other reasons.

There are debates where not answering a relevant question is conceding the point.
But most of the time, a debate has come to a natural end when neither interlocutor has to add any relevant point.
Like in a Chess match, when the opponent makes an illegal move, and loses by default, a debate can end with an interlocutor making a stupid remark that doesn't have to be answered.
E.g.: in a religious debate, when my interlocutor threatens me with hellfire, I see that as a confession of defeat. It would be rude to kick someone who is down, so no answer is the sensible way to end it.

 

[blü 2]

I don't think that no longer responding to a debate usually means someone has conceded a point, and I would rather not assume that this is why someone has stopped responding. Occasionally, it may mean that, but I have found that most of the time, people stop responding for any number of other reasons.

I suspect I can usually tell whether the other party's discontinuance is concession or is for some other reason.

 

[RestlessSoul]

There are debates which go on for pages and pages, with nothing new being said by either party. The longer it goes on, the less the participants hear each other, and the more entrenched they become in their respective opinions. No one can possibly win those.

 

[Secret Chief]

If I believe that no longer responding is equivalent to conceding the point, I compel myself to pursuing an interchange that I may deem wholly worthless. We may argue the comparative merits of heavy metal versus coloratura soprano for days on end but, sooner or later, I'll leave you to your noise as I sit back and listen to Tales of Hoffman -- conceding nothing.

Not a Motorhead fan then?

 

[SalixIncendium]

If I stop responding in a debate, it's usually because I realize the discourse is no longer productive and that my opponent and I have reached an impasse, or my opponent has resorted to distasteful tactics, such as personal attacks, straw men, shifting goalposts, etc.

I've never felt the need to claim victory in a debate. If you feel the purpose of debate is winning, unless you're running for a political office, you've sadly missed the point of debate.