What's Your Debating Style?

[MysticSang'ha]

I've conceded before when presented with solid points. But typically I get bored after so many rounds of the same tactics brought in about things I'll debate about.

Mostly, though, I'm just here to hook up with the sexy people.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 for me.
Most of the time I'm here for the laughs, with a dose of mental stimulation thrown in. Only mind I really expect to see evidence of change in is my own.

 

[Viker]

I consider this as part of my ongoing therapy.

 

[Kathryn]

OK seriously - I voted for #3. But in order to be persuaded, I do need solid evidence. And I don't respond well to an arrogant manner, regardless of the evidence being presented.

 

[Viker]

My fave was the sloth option.

 

[Amechania]

I'm kind if a jerk because the only time I enjoy debating is when I take a position to which I don't actually subscribe. For some reason this agitates people which gives me great satisfaction. Yes, technically I'm crazy.

 

[LuisDantas]

1,3 and 4.

Mostly I attempt to connect at the same language and respect level that I am offered, somewhat modified by my degree of interest on the subject matter.

Yes, I am that merciless.

 

[Amechania]

1,3 and 4.

Mostly I attempt to connect at the same language and respect level that I am offered, somewhat modified by my degree of interest on the subject matter.

Yes, I am that merciless.

You are one of my favorite debaters because you are so naturally logical. And you are succinct, which tells me you think before you respond. And your humor is so subtle I wonder sometimes if even you are aware of it.

 

[Viker]

1,3 and 4.

Mostly I attempt to connect at the same language and respect level that I am offered, somewhat modified by my degree of interest on the subject matter.

Yes, I am that merciless.

I've seen it. You can be a vicious debate attack beast.

 

[s2a]

I didn't see this option, which is mine:

"I'll debate if I have either a 1) bottomless pot of coffee, or 2) bottomless bottle of wine. I make more sense to myself when using option 2."

Cheers!

You are rude in a most appealing and attractive fashion.

Do these pajama pants make my butt look too big?

More importantly, do I care?
I know...it "Depends"

 

[sun rise]

I voted 7. I would have voted for other things if confirmation bias weren't so well developed in human beings. Occasionally someone will really want to get feedback on something or really be interested in answers. But mostly we believe we're right and that the world would be a better place if all of you agreed with me - not that I'm biased, of course.

 

[Amechania]

I've seen it. You can be a vicious debate attack beast.

He's never viscious. It's not in him. Ruthless, cruel, cold-blooded sure. But never viscious.

 

[LuisDantas]

He's never viscious. It's not in him. Ruthless, cruel, cold-blooded sure. But never viscious.

You say the sweetest things.

 

[s2a]

We're supposed to have a style?

For now, I'm gonna blame the after-shave.

 

[s2a]

OK seriously - I voted for #3. But in order to be persuaded, I do need solid evidence. And I don't respond well to an arrogant manner, regardless of the evidence being presented.

*rub*

 

[LuisDantas]

I have noticed that it is a rare - and most worthwhile - debate that where the people involved do not arrive with a solid expectation of how they will feel when they have finished.

Logical debate is nearly impossible until and unless a previous relationship of mutual respect is already well established and accepted.

Which is why I have increasingly chosen to establish the level of interaction before anything else if I have the chance. It is bad enough to have failed communication. The least anyone deserves is to know outright that the communications have in fact failed.

And maybe it is just me, but succesful communication is probably the exception rather than the rule. Even in academic environments, possibly.

 

[ChristineES]

Number 4, I'll get bored and move on, even if I know I am right.

 

[ShivaFan]

My "debating" style is often confused by others as debate, when in fact on the scale it is light on debate and heavy on irony mixed with snarkey humor, and the reason for this is that I do not believe anyone is "right" but just different levels of "not wrong but mostly wrong" as far as "the bottom line" including fellow Hindus, almost all are generally wrong from "both sides" and for most things that folks think are serious enough to have a debate about, these are debates that are actually over things for which there is no answer, no solution, nor is there a utopia, complexity is much more broad than some can ever imagine, and you will always have the poor. Also too much of this debate is over exaggerated and I just laugh with irreverence. Oddly, pretty much everything that I predict comes true, I am hardly ever wrong in the end (so far) and "time is on my side". But that might be because I don't care while at the same my "debate" is just the most friendly prankster you might imagine, and my agenda has zero to do with "winning you over to my side". I am only interested in companionship that wants adventure, otherwise "catch me if you can". Why do people assume there is an "answer"?

So none of the choices match my "style", the most close perhaps is 7 because I do have a lot of fun. My "style" is "what time does the next magic carpet leave for Timbuktu, or is it Kathmandu?"

 

[s2a]

My "debating" style is often confused by others as debate, when in fact on the scale it is light on debate and heavy on irony mixed with snarkey humor, and the reason for this is that I do not believe anyone is "right" but just different levels of "not wrong but mostly wrong" as far as "the bottom line" including fellow Hindus, almost all are generally wrong from "both sides" and for most things that folks think are serious enough to have a debate about, these are debates that are actually over things for which there is no answer, no solution, nor is there a utopia, complexity is much more broad than some can ever imagine, and you will always have the poor. Also too much of this debate is over exaggerated and I just laugh with irreverence. Oddly, pretty much everything that I predict comes true, I am hardly ever wrong in the end (so far) and "time is on my side". But that might be because I don't care while at the same my "debate" is just the most friendly prankster you might imagine, and my agenda has zero to do with "winning you over to my side". I am only interested in companionship that wants adventure, otherwise "catch me if you can". Why do people assume there is an "answer"?

So none of the choices match my "style", the most close perhaps is 7 because I do have a lot of fun. My "style" is "what time does the next magic carpet leave for Timbuktu, or is it Kathmandu?"

Just for this moment...I do admire your personalized candor.

Essentially, you willingly concede, "I don't know, but let me tell you what I "believe".

Admirable. I do wish that at least Christian Evangelists were that forthcoming. By and large, they are not.

I am confident that you are very aware that skeptics/atheists (etc,) retain no fears in stating "I don't know". What mostly separates "believers" from ske[tics is the addendum notion of..."I don't know; still looking".

The comfort afforded by religious claims and beliefs, is that once you accept such "answers as "final" ...then there no longer exists any rationale to look any further.

"I don't Know".

"Well, God said so...so don't ask (again)."

End of discussion/debate.

This sort of argumentation works well with pets.

Humans are another matter.

 

[sun rise]

I have noticed that it is a rare - and most worthwhile - debate that where the people involved do not arrive with a solid expectation of how they will feel when they have finished.

Logical debate is nearly impossible until and unless a previous relationship of mutual respect is already well established and accepted.

Which is why I have increasingly chosen to establish the level of interaction before anything else if I have the chance. It is bad enough to have failed communication. The least anyone deserves is to know outright that the communications have in fact failed.

And maybe it is just me, but succesful communication is probably the exception rather than the rule. Even in academic environments, possibly.

Before I retired I had the following on my cubicle wall which upon occasion exactly expressed the communication problem:

“I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”