Debates and skinning
Monday, April 29, 2002 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
I'm curious as to how people in this community feel about debating. Some people I know simply don't like to get into disagreements or "constructive arguments" (aka debates). Other people (like myself) love to debate (as you've no doubt seen over the years).
In my off hours, I'll visit political, history, and technology sites purely to debate with other people who also like to debate. It's a great way to sharpen the mind's thought process and think through an idea or an opinion because you get in the habit of having to look at an issue from multiple sides which can save you grief later on.
Because I visit so many different "communities" (I'm very active in the game developer community for instance as well as several political discussion communities) it's easy to see general differences in how people act and feel and argue when they feel passionate about something.
It seems to me that most people in the skinning community are generally not into debating. Which is of course not bad at all. The only downside I've seen is the number of people who want to make assertions based on emotion or "gut feeling" but are disclined to have to back up that assertion with evidence or reasoning. It usually comes back to either "Well that's just how I feel" or it'll turn into a flame war.
I think sometimes one of the reasons why some people will see my posts on some site and consider me "combative" is because when I disagree with something, I try to get the person I disagree to back up their assertions.
Example:
"Program X sucks, it's just really slow and buggy."
If I disagree, I'll respond with:
"That hasn't been the case in my experience. What version did you run? What hardware? How was it buggy?"
In over 90% of the cases, I can never get a response. The user typically goes into "Well that's just my opinion, aren't I free to have opinions?" which is known in debate circles as a "strawman argument" (i.e. trying to redirect the debate into a different topic -- I wasn't implying he didn't have a right to an opinion, but merely to explain where his opinion derived from.
One thing about techies is that there is something unusual about them compared to other people. They have an unusually high desire to demonstrate knowledge -- even when they really don't have any knowledge. Hence the situation you see above. Because typically when I do get real answers about why they think program X sucks it's "I used version 1.2 3 years ago and it crashed on my Windows 95 box so I'm going to assume it hasn't changed in 3 years and how it would run on my new Windows XP machine..."
This is particular prevalent in IRC where those most inclined to behave in this way 15 to 21 year olds, will usually confuse ignorant criticism for providing knowledge (everything "sucks" to these 15 to 21 year old IRC people even if they're only vaguely familiar with it - sometimes it only requires hearing someone else who barely knows it to say something sucks for them to say it sucks).
I tend to take the view of not expressing an opinion unless I can back up my assertion with evidence - i.e. because of my debating background, I try to be ready to defend any position I take with reason and logic.
Which brings us back to the beginning - in the skinning community, there is a higher percentage than average of the population that doesn't respond well to reason and logic -- emotion, feelings, instincts and "that's just how I feel" are much more prevalent.
So those of you reading this, what do you think? Do debates make you uncomfortable? Is it your view that people should be entitled to their opinion and speak that opinion without being called on it? Or do you feel that when someone gives an opinion on something that others are equally entitled to call them on it?
I don't think either answer is better than the other. Afterall, on the one hand you don't want people to feel like they can't give an opinion on something without being challenged all the time. And on the other hand it's lazy intellectualism to constantly give opinions based on vague "gut feelings".
What's your view?
In my off hours, I'll visit political, history, and technology sites purely to debate with other people who also like to debate. It's a great way to sharpen the mind's thought process and think through an idea or an opinion because you get in the habit of having to look at an issue from multiple sides which can save you grief later on.
Because I visit so many different "communities" (I'm very active in the game developer community for instance as well as several political discussion communities) it's easy to see general differences in how people act and feel and argue when they feel passionate about something.
It seems to me that most people in the skinning community are generally not into debating. Which is of course not bad at all. The only downside I've seen is the number of people who want to make assertions based on emotion or "gut feeling" but are disclined to have to back up that assertion with evidence or reasoning. It usually comes back to either "Well that's just how I feel" or it'll turn into a flame war.
I think sometimes one of the reasons why some people will see my posts on some site and consider me "combative" is because when I disagree with something, I try to get the person I disagree to back up their assertions.
Example:
"Program X sucks, it's just really slow and buggy."
If I disagree, I'll respond with:
"That hasn't been the case in my experience. What version did you run? What hardware? How was it buggy?"
In over 90% of the cases, I can never get a response. The user typically goes into "Well that's just my opinion, aren't I free to have opinions?" which is known in debate circles as a "strawman argument" (i.e. trying to redirect the debate into a different topic -- I wasn't implying he didn't have a right to an opinion, but merely to explain where his opinion derived from.
One thing about techies is that there is something unusual about them compared to other people. They have an unusually high desire to demonstrate knowledge -- even when they really don't have any knowledge. Hence the situation you see above. Because typically when I do get real answers about why they think program X sucks it's "I used version 1.2 3 years ago and it crashed on my Windows 95 box so I'm going to assume it hasn't changed in 3 years and how it would run on my new Windows XP machine..."
This is particular prevalent in IRC where those most inclined to behave in this way 15 to 21 year olds, will usually confuse ignorant criticism for providing knowledge (everything "sucks" to these 15 to 21 year old IRC people even if they're only vaguely familiar with it - sometimes it only requires hearing someone else who barely knows it to say something sucks for them to say it sucks).
I tend to take the view of not expressing an opinion unless I can back up my assertion with evidence - i.e. because of my debating background, I try to be ready to defend any position I take with reason and logic.
Which brings us back to the beginning - in the skinning community, there is a higher percentage than average of the population that doesn't respond well to reason and logic -- emotion, feelings, instincts and "that's just how I feel" are much more prevalent.
So those of you reading this, what do you think? Do debates make you uncomfortable? Is it your view that people should be entitled to their opinion and speak that opinion without being called on it? Or do you feel that when someone gives an opinion on something that others are equally entitled to call them on it?
I don't think either answer is better than the other. Afterall, on the one hand you don't want people to feel like they can't give an opinion on something without being challenged all the time. And on the other hand it's lazy intellectualism to constantly give opinions based on vague "gut feelings".
What's your view?
 |
|
Page 2 of 4 | |
|
|---|
DavidK
Reply #22 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:06 AM
Reply #22 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:06 AM
I found it very handy when I lived in a small town where the Jehova Witnesses would come around frequently. I invited them inside, made some coffee for them and then had a debate.
hehe - they never came back...
hehe - they never came back...
Frogboy
Reply #23 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:09 AM
Reply #23 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:09 AM
The Jehova witnesses aren't willing to come to my house anymore.
When they first came over, they thought I was a deeply religious person because my bible has TONS of bookmarks, highlights and the like in it. After a lengthy discussion of Leviticus (read that part sometime) they left and never came back.
Good debates can be historical. Who was "right" in the US civil war? North or South? What are the goals of life? Will humans become immortal and if so, when?
These are the things that get brought up on Stardock's news server all the time in the discussion groups.
When they first came over, they thought I was a deeply religious person because my bible has TONS of bookmarks, highlights and the like in it. After a lengthy discussion of Leviticus (read that part sometime) they left and never came back.
Good debates can be historical. Who was "right" in the US civil war? North or South? What are the goals of life? Will humans become immortal and if so, when?
These are the things that get brought up on Stardock's news server all the time in the discussion groups.
Third Eye
Reply #24 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:29 AM
Reply #24 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:29 AM
I must agree with Boy of Frog 
Debates are great for sharpening the mind and expanding ones realization of this reality we live in. To debate to test a theory or to learn more insight into something is grand, but to debate to only show ones superiority of knowledge within a subject is self defeating and does not allow for mental growth in any direction.
I think the best debates are the ones that close with something learned.
Albert Einstein: "I believe in the brotherhood of man and the uniqueness of the individual. But if you ask me to prove what I believe, I can't. You know them to be true but you could spend a whole lifetime without being able to prove them. The mind can proceed only so far upon what it knows and can prove. There comes a point where the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge, but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap."
Debates are great for sharpening the mind and expanding ones realization of this reality we live in. To debate to test a theory or to learn more insight into something is grand, but to debate to only show ones superiority of knowledge within a subject is self defeating and does not allow for mental growth in any direction.
I think the best debates are the ones that close with something learned.
Albert Einstein: "I believe in the brotherhood of man and the uniqueness of the individual. But if you ask me to prove what I believe, I can't. You know them to be true but you could spend a whole lifetime without being able to prove them. The mind can proceed only so far upon what it knows and can prove. There comes a point where the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge, but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap."
Peff
Reply #25 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 1:04 AM
Reply #25 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 1:04 AM
IMO debates are nothing more than a somewhat futile exchange of viewpoints (or beliefs). Not much more than idle chit-chat. Why do I say this? Because I believe that while it is always enlightening to see the 'world' as other people see it, it is a rare case when the tenets of an arguement (whether sound or not) sway the beliefs of the opposing view. Too many factors come into play...whether they be social, cultural or otherwise...
No matter how objective one believes their viewpoint to be, some element of belief (or faith, or tradition) always influences that very viewpoint. Religion, for example assumes the element of faith (be it 'blind' or otherwise)...to which there cannot be any convincing rebuttal.
Reardless of the fact that no viewpoint can ever be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt...with metaphysical certainty, that is.
Nonetheless, I think debate is healthy. It [debate] not only gives us a different perspective on certain issues -- however 'bogus' we might think they are, but it allows us to interact with each other...leading to a more 'mature' understanding of who we are and how we fit into our universe.
Just my opinion,
Stefan
No matter how objective one believes their viewpoint to be, some element of belief (or faith, or tradition) always influences that very viewpoint. Religion, for example assumes the element of faith (be it 'blind' or otherwise)...to which there cannot be any convincing rebuttal.
Reardless of the fact that no viewpoint can ever be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt...with metaphysical certainty, that is.
Nonetheless, I think debate is healthy. It [debate] not only gives us a different perspective on certain issues -- however 'bogus' we might think they are, but it allows us to interact with each other...leading to a more 'mature' understanding of who we are and how we fit into our universe.
Just my opinion,
Stefan
DavidK
Reply #26 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 1:37 AM
Reply #26 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 1:37 AM
I truly miss the times, somewhere in my twenties, when I was lucky enough to meet a lot of very remarkable people. It was very common that we would stay up till sunrise discussing things. Those conversations, which often turned into debates, were the most rewarding intellectual discussions I ever had. Most of my sense of who I am was formed in the joyous pursuit of truth that was a hallmark of those days and those conversations.
adni18
Reply #27 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 3:29 AM
Reply #27 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 3:29 AM
..."It was very common that we would stay up till sunrise discussing things. Those conversations, which often turned into debates, were the most rewarding intellectual discussions"
Hehe David you took the words from my mouth, in your last thread
Now, I am trying to avoid the debates that lead nowhere, (for example, with The Jehovah witnesses), but I still believe that debates are the easiest way for the evolution of mankind.
I am sorry that my English are not good enough for participating in any kind of healthy debates; I wish I knew better English
Hehe David you took the words from my mouth, in your last thread
Now, I am trying to avoid the debates that lead nowhere, (for example, with The Jehovah witnesses), but I still believe that debates are the easiest way for the evolution of mankind.
I am sorry that my English are not good enough for participating in any kind of healthy debates; I wish I knew better English
DavidK
Reply #28 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 3:48 AM
Reply #28 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 3:48 AM
You do fine Nikos... and jafo will fix anything you cock up.
I don't know a single word of Greek (except "betamax") so you're way ahead of me...
I don't know a single word of Greek (except "betamax") so you're way ahead of me...
craeonics
Reply #29 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 9:12 AM
Reply #29 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 9:12 AM
Half the English language is derived from Greek (sligh exaggeration).
Anyway, according to the Grand Dictionary of crae it's like this:
1. debate = pointless, closed-minded spouting of opinions, supposedly backed up by "facts", in order to convince the audience. Politicians do it a lot and I find it repulsive.
2. discussion = open exchange of viewpoints, which has a constructive purpose.
Debates focus more on proving the audience that the other side is wrong and you are right, while discussions is not about personal glory but about progressing via said exchange of viewpoints.
Doreen is right you know, people who like to debate just like to talk/type and be heard.
I have this theory (I have many theories, none of them backed up by "facts") that people who like to debate are incapable of speaking in a compact, to the point manner. and try to hide this by focussing on specific details while ignoring others.
Anyway, according to the Grand Dictionary of crae it's like this:
1. debate = pointless, closed-minded spouting of opinions, supposedly backed up by "facts", in order to convince the audience. Politicians do it a lot and I find it repulsive.
2. discussion = open exchange of viewpoints, which has a constructive purpose.
Debates focus more on proving the audience that the other side is wrong and you are right, while discussions is not about personal glory but about progressing via said exchange of viewpoints.
Doreen is right you know, people who like to debate just like to talk/type and be heard.
I have this theory (I have many theories, none of them backed up by "facts") that people who like to debate are incapable of speaking in a compact, to the point manner. and try to hide this by focussing on specific details while ignoring others.
craeonics
Reply #30 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 9:34 AM
Reply #30 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 9:34 AM
By the way, if you want to see debating in its gory gruesomeness, visit kuro5hin.org or pick a random thread with more than fifty posts at DevArt.
grayhaze
Reply #31 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 9:55 AM
Reply #31 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 9:55 AM
For once I can't be bothered to read through the whole thread before responding, so I apologise if I'm simply repeating something that someone else has said.
I think the obvious distinction here is that technically-minded people tend to debate based on documented facts and tend to take either one side or another - to a technical person there is a definate right and wrong answer to everything.
On the other hand, creative-minded people tend to debate based on feelings, emotions and experience. They rarely see simply a right or wrong side to a problem, but rather shades of right and wrong. The creative people tend to take a very non-commital stance to a debate, preferring to be the mediators, and only bringing up hard facts when they are what they perceive to be 'common sense' - ie. grass is green, ice is cold.
You'll certainly see a lot of debate amongst creatives, especially designers who have a bit of a reputation as being opinionated and fiercely protective of their ideas. However, when a debate consists of a technical person arguing with a creative, just stand back and watch the fireworks!
I think the obvious distinction here is that technically-minded people tend to debate based on documented facts and tend to take either one side or another - to a technical person there is a definate right and wrong answer to everything.
On the other hand, creative-minded people tend to debate based on feelings, emotions and experience. They rarely see simply a right or wrong side to a problem, but rather shades of right and wrong. The creative people tend to take a very non-commital stance to a debate, preferring to be the mediators, and only bringing up hard facts when they are what they perceive to be 'common sense' - ie. grass is green, ice is cold.
You'll certainly see a lot of debate amongst creatives, especially designers who have a bit of a reputation as being opinionated and fiercely protective of their ideas. However, when a debate consists of a technical person arguing with a creative, just stand back and watch the fireworks!
Jafo
Reply #34 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:03 AM
Reply #34 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:03 AM
grayhaze....what if you are an artistic technician, or a technical artist?...
Doreen
Reply #35 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:14 AM
Reply #35 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:14 AM
One debate Doreen and I have touched on is a timeless one: "What is success?"
by Scribe Frogboy - 4/29/2002 11:07:58 PM
okay since I have this rep of going off topic, lets take a moment to go off topic and discuss "success" hehe
I think there is two kinds of success Brad
1. Physical and factual success like you like to have where you can "see it" and the majority of ppl agree it to be success along w/ you.
2. Non physical success where you "feel it" you cannot prove it but you only have a sense of it and it is something only the individual themselves set out to do and accomplish
most ppl want #1. and ppl that fall into that catagory expect everyone elses idea of success to be as #1.
okay now we have something new to debate on... hehe j/k
and I'm just spouting thoughts here I never really have facts to back up my stuff
by Scribe Frogboy - 4/29/2002 11:07:58 PM
okay since I have this rep of going off topic, lets take a moment to go off topic and discuss "success" hehe
I think there is two kinds of success Brad
1. Physical and factual success like you like to have where you can "see it" and the majority of ppl agree it to be success along w/ you.
2. Non physical success where you "feel it" you cannot prove it but you only have a sense of it and it is something only the individual themselves set out to do and accomplish
most ppl want #1. and ppl that fall into that catagory expect everyone elses idea of success to be as #1.
okay now we have something new to debate on... hehe j/k
and I'm just spouting thoughts here I never really have facts to back up my stuff
GreenReaper
Reply #36 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:32 AM
Reply #36 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:32 AM
Jafo: Then you have the uncomfortable situation of thinking everyone's either right or wrong. 
Frogboy
Reply #37 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 11:41 AM
Reply #37 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 11:41 AM
It's been my experience that those who criticize debating are usually not very good at it or are so close minded that they just want their unjustified views to be accepted as fact.
I'm not speaking of anyone here specifically, just a general observation I've seen in various places. The worst debaters I've met tend to be the people who often feel strongest (emotionally) about something and simply are closed minded. It reminds me of a recent debate where an individual claimed "Stardock is evil" but when called on it couldn't come up with a single legitimate reason to back up his claim and retreated to the old "What? Aren't I allowed to have an opinion?!"
Most of my constructive beliefs that I have today are the result of debates. Were it not for debates, my views would be a lot more "extreme" on many issues. Without someone challenging ones views and being forced to back them up, people tend to become more and more set in a particularly narrow view.
Let me give you a recent example:
My friend Sander (a liberal) and myself (a conservative) regularly debate the roles of governments and corporations and taxes. This time of year (Tax season) I get pretty annoyed about taxes because of the fact that half the population in the US pays basically nothing and the top 10 percent pays the majority of it.
But my friend Sander pointed out a perspective I never thought of:
"The wealthy do owe a disproportionate amount to society. It's not a matter of whether they receive equal services from the government but rather they receive an unequal benefit from having been part of this society. Bill Gates, born in Somalia would not be the richest man in the world. He'd be another starving Somalian in all likelyhood."
Up until then (And this was recently) I had tkaen the view that the government is just a service provider and hence why should I be charged more for their services than the next guy? I don't pay extra for electricity because of my income, why should I be expected to pay more for roads that I barely drive on?
But Sander's point was pretty compelling and hence moved me slightly left (I'm still pretty conservative of course) because he's right. Have enough conversations with enough intelligent people who are able to articulate their views and you gain a wealth of wisdom and knowledge. Hence why I like debates and dislike lazy intellectualism.
I'm not speaking of anyone here specifically, just a general observation I've seen in various places. The worst debaters I've met tend to be the people who often feel strongest (emotionally) about something and simply are closed minded. It reminds me of a recent debate where an individual claimed "Stardock is evil" but when called on it couldn't come up with a single legitimate reason to back up his claim and retreated to the old "What? Aren't I allowed to have an opinion?!"
Most of my constructive beliefs that I have today are the result of debates. Were it not for debates, my views would be a lot more "extreme" on many issues. Without someone challenging ones views and being forced to back them up, people tend to become more and more set in a particularly narrow view.
Let me give you a recent example:
My friend Sander (a liberal) and myself (a conservative) regularly debate the roles of governments and corporations and taxes. This time of year (Tax season) I get pretty annoyed about taxes because of the fact that half the population in the US pays basically nothing and the top 10 percent pays the majority of it.
But my friend Sander pointed out a perspective I never thought of:
"The wealthy do owe a disproportionate amount to society. It's not a matter of whether they receive equal services from the government but rather they receive an unequal benefit from having been part of this society. Bill Gates, born in Somalia would not be the richest man in the world. He'd be another starving Somalian in all likelyhood."
Up until then (And this was recently) I had tkaen the view that the government is just a service provider and hence why should I be charged more for their services than the next guy? I don't pay extra for electricity because of my income, why should I be expected to pay more for roads that I barely drive on?
But Sander's point was pretty compelling and hence moved me slightly left (I'm still pretty conservative of course) because he's right. Have enough conversations with enough intelligent people who are able to articulate their views and you gain a wealth of wisdom and knowledge. Hence why I like debates and dislike lazy intellectualism.
paxx
Reply #38 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:02 PM
Reply #38 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:02 PM
craeonics have a very valid point. I like his definition.
Debate: pointless arguments meant to show off how intelligent you think you are.
Discussion: healthy exchange of ideas meant to try to broaden each party's ideas and views.
Yes, the more I think about it, the more I agree. Excellent input Crae, thank you.
Debate: pointless arguments meant to show off how intelligent you think you are.
Discussion: healthy exchange of ideas meant to try to broaden each party's ideas and views.
Yes, the more I think about it, the more I agree. Excellent input Crae, thank you.
grayhaze
Reply #39 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:17 PM
Reply #39 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:17 PM
Technical people = Scully, Creative people = Mulder.
migellito
Reply #40 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:35 PM
Reply #40 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:35 PM
jcg:: excellent points up there. debate wears me out sometimes, as i often end up discovering some person or other simply won't listen to evidence or facts that don't support their opinion. this is just savagely rampant in society, and it's unfortunate. there is that rare time when someone's opinion becomes enlightened [including mine] and that keeps me coming back.
the main thing that drives me to abject frustration in a debate [or a discussion, for that matter] is jcg's point number 2. this repugnant belief so prevalent in [especially american] society that -every- opinion is valid. it's simply not true. some opinions are wrong.
i've had to fight this professionally as well, since my degrees are anthropology and history. people want -so- badly to avoid the terrible things these disciplines were used for in the thirties, some will go to almost any lengths to keep from 'judging' any individual or group.
another big problem is mis-labeling opinions, facts and preferences.
preference:: i like blue.
opinion:: liking blue is immoral.
fact:: blue is a common favorite color, and is prevalent in nature [as the color of the sky] due to the refractive qualities of ozone in the atmosphere.
theory:: blue has a calming influence. note- this is a theory because it's been tested and has some support by various evidence.
it's easy to see that the opinion and the theory are the two that can be debated [the theory can be debated on the validity of the evidence.]
the main thing that drives me to abject frustration in a debate [or a discussion, for that matter] is jcg's point number 2. this repugnant belief so prevalent in [especially american] society that -every- opinion is valid. it's simply not true. some opinions are wrong.
i've had to fight this professionally as well, since my degrees are anthropology and history. people want -so- badly to avoid the terrible things these disciplines were used for in the thirties, some will go to almost any lengths to keep from 'judging' any individual or group.
another big problem is mis-labeling opinions, facts and preferences.
preference:: i like blue.
opinion:: liking blue is immoral.
fact:: blue is a common favorite color, and is prevalent in nature [as the color of the sky] due to the refractive qualities of ozone in the atmosphere.
theory:: blue has a calming influence. note- this is a theory because it's been tested and has some support by various evidence.
it's easy to see that the opinion and the theory are the two that can be debated [the theory can be debated on the validity of the evidence.]
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 4 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:03 AM
Sometimes, I like to debate with those people, just so they understand that other people may think different. Sometimes, I like playing the devils advocate, especially when somebody obviously has an attitude problem, even though I agree with his/her opinion.
But I do enjoy phylosophical discussions such as "What is Evil?"