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 3 of 4 | |
|
|---|
Doreen
Reply #42 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:51 PM
Reply #42 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:51 PM
Paxxy crae always has very good input I love to talk to him 
I had this problem w/ looking at foreign dates such as:
when they put the day first the month second and the year last
to me that always looked inside out and drove me nuts cuz on my job in the past it effected legal problems for me when I attempted to file legal docs that were signed off as such and if I did not catch it I would have a wild goose chase trying to get the doctor to sign the doc again! argh!!!!!
anyways, back to the point, not only did I hate this cuz it caused me more work, "It jusss "LOOKED" funky and wrong to me!!!"
but crae explained to me that since most ppl already know the month the "day" should therefore be first (specially for lazy ppl) you can just glance at it and see the day first
to me 12/31/2002 should have been typed like that before
but now if I see 31/12/2002 I can see it's new years eve a split second faster now thanks to the dutchy
hehe
I had this problem w/ looking at foreign dates such as:
when they put the day first the month second and the year last
to me that always looked inside out and drove me nuts cuz on my job in the past it effected legal problems for me when I attempted to file legal docs that were signed off as such and if I did not catch it I would have a wild goose chase trying to get the doctor to sign the doc again! argh!!!!!
anyways, back to the point, not only did I hate this cuz it caused me more work, "It jusss "LOOKED" funky and wrong to me!!!"
but crae explained to me that since most ppl already know the month the "day" should therefore be first (specially for lazy ppl) you can just glance at it and see the day first
to me 12/31/2002 should have been typed like that before
but now if I see 31/12/2002 I can see it's new years eve a split second faster now thanks to the dutchy
hehe
Caylynn
Reply #43 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:54 PM
Reply #43 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:54 PM
I think a lot of people don't like debating because it reminds them of high school or university courses where you were given one side of an issue (whether you believed in it or not) and had to engage in a debate.
I remember one particularly pointless debate we had in a French class, where we were debating showers vs. baths. Yes, it got us to practice our French, but it felt silly to defend something so pointless.
I remember one particularly pointless debate we had in a French class, where we were debating showers vs. baths. Yes, it got us to practice our French, but it felt silly to defend something so pointless.
paxx
Reply #44 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 1:09 PM
Reply #44 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 1:09 PM
Adni, I don't know about Brad since I don't know him personaly, but with maybe Brad's exception, Crae's point works perfectly for everybody I know.
You are right to say that debates are always done in public but discussions can be done in private as well as in public. But in a debate, the object is often to "nail" the other person and "win" the debate in the eyes of the spectators (or reader, in the case of a message board). There even exists some debating tricks and strategies, in order to get good "points" in the spectators opinions, exactly as if you were in a sporting event.
The best way to recognise those types of debaters is that they hardly ever have private discussions since there is nobody to impress... I don't think it's Brad's case, I think he mentionned often that he enjoyed private ICQ or email discussions.
In Brad's case, I say that he doesn't like to debate, he likes discussions, in private and in public.
You are right to say that debates are always done in public but discussions can be done in private as well as in public. But in a debate, the object is often to "nail" the other person and "win" the debate in the eyes of the spectators (or reader, in the case of a message board). There even exists some debating tricks and strategies, in order to get good "points" in the spectators opinions, exactly as if you were in a sporting event.
The best way to recognise those types of debaters is that they hardly ever have private discussions since there is nobody to impress... I don't think it's Brad's case, I think he mentionned often that he enjoyed private ICQ or email discussions.
In Brad's case, I say that he doesn't like to debate, he likes discussions, in private and in public.
Doreen
Reply #45 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 1:16 PM
Reply #45 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 1:16 PM
W/ Brad he'll just tire your butt out on a msg board by ou typing you! so jusss forget it if you think you'll win a debate w/ him! hehe
yes privately you might have a better chance but what if he talks in real life as much as he types OMG! hehe
yes privately you might have a better chance but what if he talks in real life as much as he types OMG! hehe
adni18
Reply #46 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 1:26 PM
Reply #46 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 1:26 PM
You are right paxx Brad likes discussions, that's why he opens so many but interesting threads, I don't think that he is trying to show off how intelligent he is 
Brad likes discussions, that's why he opens so many but interesting threads, I don't think that he is trying to show off how intelligent he is 
BoXXi
Reply #48 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 3:10 PM
Reply #48 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 3:10 PM
Hmmmm...Strange! I don't consider the net a place to debate. I use the net for entertainment and pleasure. Also, I don't type very fast and often forget what I wanted to say in the next paragraph before I finish typing the previous one, which can be VERY frustrating!
I don't mind debating ANYTHING in real life, as I can talk much quicker than I type, and have the type of personality that allows me to deliver my point strongly.
So don't expect to see me in those long debating threads, unless it's to interject some humour into the proceedings. (in less than 20 words!)
Damn! I had something else interesting to say, but forgot it while I was typing the above!! Oh well.........
I don't mind debating ANYTHING in real life, as I can talk much quicker than I type, and have the type of personality that allows me to deliver my point strongly.
So don't expect to see me in those long debating threads, unless it's to interject some humour into the proceedings. (in less than 20 words!)
Damn! I had something else interesting to say, but forgot it while I was typing the above!! Oh well.........
You are something else BoXXi !
Frogboy
Reply #50 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 4:40 PM
Reply #50 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 4:40 PM
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame21.html (that's me)
But seriously, just because Craeonics or Paxx want to redefine what the word "debate" is to being something ugly and nasty is meaningless.
As someone with considerable experience in DEBATING and DISCUSSING I can say that few people fit the stereotype that Craeonics and Paxx believe (that people who like to debate just want to show off intelligence).
Perhaps debating can be seen more as a strategy game where people of opposing sides attempt to use facts and evidence and sound arguments to convince a third party that their opinion is more valid than the other. Whereas as discussion in design to convince the other party to change their view.
Hence: Debates are about "winning" the hearts and minds of observers and discussions are about winning the hearts and minds of those you are discussing with.
Most of the people I have debated with are fun, intelligent, and caring people. Anyone who's spent much time on news://news.stardock.com/stardock.discussion.politics knows that all the people there are interesting fun OPEN MINDED guys and gals.
For me on skinning sites, I generally am into what you would term discussions. But I will get into a debate when someone makes a fairly radical statement that doesn't seem at all backed up by reality and challenge them to back up their claims.
For example, take Craeonics' statement:
"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."
Even Crae admits that his hypothesis is just a gut feeling. For instance, maybe he just feels that when I debate that I ignore some details and focus on others and hence has generalized ita ll to be all people who like to debate.
My response to that would be that those who like to debate are more verbose specifically because of the need for qualifications. A good debater qualifies their statements and that takes more time.
Afterall, it's a lot easier to just say "People who like to debate are close minded." That's pretty short. It's a baseless claim (or "a stated opinion" for you warm/fuzzy types )
COMPARED to a valid argument:
"People who like to debate are often appear as close minded when it comes to taking into account that other points of view may be valid. For example, on the website kuro5hin, there are several current debates (link link link) in which it's obvious from reading the whole of the responses that the people making the statements are not even reading what their opponents are saying. Instead, they focus on specific statements, make strawman arguments out of them in order ot bolster their already set in stone opinon. Given that the majority of discussions there seem to be that way, I feel it's valid to say that people who like to debate are close minded in general or at least on that site which I've seen no evidence to imply that it isn't that way elsewhere..." (btw, I dont' actually agree with this, I'm just demonstrating why a GOOD debater's posts are lengthier than a poor debater's posts).
You see how much more effort it takes to make a VALID argument than to make a baseless claim.
But seriously, just because Craeonics or Paxx want to redefine what the word "debate" is to being something ugly and nasty is meaningless.
As someone with considerable experience in DEBATING and DISCUSSING I can say that few people fit the stereotype that Craeonics and Paxx believe (that people who like to debate just want to show off intelligence).
Perhaps debating can be seen more as a strategy game where people of opposing sides attempt to use facts and evidence and sound arguments to convince a third party that their opinion is more valid than the other. Whereas as discussion in design to convince the other party to change their view.
Hence: Debates are about "winning" the hearts and minds of observers and discussions are about winning the hearts and minds of those you are discussing with.
Most of the people I have debated with are fun, intelligent, and caring people. Anyone who's spent much time on news://news.stardock.com/stardock.discussion.politics knows that all the people there are interesting fun OPEN MINDED guys and gals.
For me on skinning sites, I generally am into what you would term discussions. But I will get into a debate when someone makes a fairly radical statement that doesn't seem at all backed up by reality and challenge them to back up their claims.
For example, take Craeonics' statement:
"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."
Even Crae admits that his hypothesis is just a gut feeling. For instance, maybe he just feels that when I debate that I ignore some details and focus on others and hence has generalized ita ll to be all people who like to debate.
My response to that would be that those who like to debate are more verbose specifically because of the need for qualifications. A good debater qualifies their statements and that takes more time.
Afterall, it's a lot easier to just say "People who like to debate are close minded." That's pretty short. It's a baseless claim (or "a stated opinion" for you warm/fuzzy types
)COMPARED to a valid argument:
"People who like to debate are often appear as close minded when it comes to taking into account that other points of view may be valid. For example, on the website kuro5hin, there are several current debates (link link link) in which it's obvious from reading the whole of the responses that the people making the statements are not even reading what their opponents are saying. Instead, they focus on specific statements, make strawman arguments out of them in order ot bolster their already set in stone opinon. Given that the majority of discussions there seem to be that way, I feel it's valid to say that people who like to debate are close minded in general or at least on that site which I've seen no evidence to imply that it isn't that way elsewhere..." (btw, I dont' actually agree with this, I'm just demonstrating why a GOOD debater's posts are lengthier than a poor debater's posts).
You see how much more effort it takes to make a VALID argument than to make a baseless claim.
Jafo
Reply #52 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 5:30 PM
Reply #52 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 5:30 PM
Doreen...12/31/2002 is just American...the 'real' world does it correctly....smallest to largest...D/M/Y...
Frank Leon
Reply #53 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 7:17 PM
Reply #53 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 7:17 PM
I stopped coming here awhile back because of the lack of debates. when this place started up it had lots of interesting debates. It was the only themesite where the people were intelligent enough to have heated debates that weren't flamefests. But then it got all lovey dovey. It losts its edge. I think FB got soft if you ask me. No ''community'' has as much of a superiority complex as the ''skinning community''. Bunch of high-and-mighty folks with naive opinions that they expect to be taken seriously just because they've been in ''the community'' a long time. People who had to many yes-men around them that they forgot that their opinions aren't facts. I'd like to see debates here but I don't have much hope. Weak minded people see disagreements as unfriendliness and there's no shortage of that in the overpoliticized franchise of ''the community''. The only guys who want to debate are guys like me or FB or Paxx or Jafo who seem to have the same ideas on lots of things or little kid pissants who think a debate is the act of trying to 'burn' people with one line wits like I see one just a couple respones above me. 
At least this places provides good help for new people. It is really top notch for that. But for real intellectual meat I go elsewhere.
At least this places provides good help for new people. It is really top notch for that. But for real intellectual meat I go elsewhere.
Jafo
Reply #54 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 7:29 PM
Reply #54 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 7:29 PM
This isn't a debate, it's a contradiction....
No it isn't....
Yes it is....
Ah, where'd we be without Python?...
No it isn't....
Yes it is....
Ah, where'd we be without Python?...
BoXXi
Reply #55 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 9:28 PM
Reply #55 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 9:28 PM
Frank! You've changed! Don't you love us anymore? 
I don't have time to debate anything Frank, my online time is limited these days, and I seem to run around like a mad thing trying to fit everything in!
But, I think it's unfair to say that because people don't get involved in debates they lack intelligence. Maybe many others don't have the time, the finger speed or the inclination. Or maybe, like me, they are just here for fun, and not the intellectual side of things?
I hope we see more of you again Frank.
I don't have time to debate anything Frank, my online time is limited these days, and I seem to run around like a mad thing trying to fit everything in!
But, I think it's unfair to say that because people don't get involved in debates they lack intelligence. Maybe many others don't have the time, the finger speed or the inclination. Or maybe, like me, they are just here for fun, and not the intellectual side of things?
I hope we see more of you again Frank.
Phar0e
Reply #56 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 9:29 PM
Reply #56 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 9:29 PM
Then there are those that treat debate as a bit of a game. The object is to score the most points, of course
paxx
Reply #57 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 11:17 PM
Reply #57 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 11:17 PM
I don't see it that way, Brad. To me, a debate has little to do with the topic at hand, which really only serves as a theme for the show. A debate only has to do with debating. A discussion on the other hand only concerns what is being discussed.
That's what I like discussion, and not so much debates.
Debating is a sport. Discussing is lounging.
That's what I like discussion, and not so much debates.
Debating is a sport. Discussing is lounging.
paxx
Reply #58 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 11:24 PM
Reply #58 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 11:24 PM
And by the way, I'm not debating what a debate is, I'm discussing it and expressing my view.
Frogboy
Reply #59 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 11:26 PM
Reply #59 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 11:26 PM
http://www.britannica.com/cgi-bin/dict?va=debate
From Encyclopedia Britanica.
From Encyclopedia Britanica.
craeonics
Reply #60 Wednesday, May 1, 2002 3:52 AM
Reply #60 Wednesday, May 1, 2002 3:52 AM
Nooooooo!! You/he used the Dictionary Definition Argument... That always results in nitpicking over where to place to comma (so to speak). Ah well, can't resist.
Compare that definition to the one for discussion. First your/froggy's link:
"Main Entry: 1de·bate
Pronunciation: di-'bAt, dE-
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
: a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides"
...then the other meaning:
"Main Entry: 2debate
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): de·bat·ed; de·bat·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French debatre, from Old French, from de- + batre to beat, from Latin battuere
Date: 14th century
intransitive senses
1 obsolete : FIGHT, CONTEND
2 a : to contend in words b : to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments
3 : to participate in a debate
transitive senses
1 a : to argue about b : to engage (an opponent) in debate
2 : to turn over in one's mind
synonym see DISCUSS
- de·bate·ment /-'bAt-m&nt/ noun
- de·bat·er noun"
...and compare it to "discussion":
"Main Entry: dis·cus·sion
Pronunciation: di-'sk&-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
2 : a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing"
Or in other words, debate is a match, while discussion is an exchange of viewpoints.
Compare that definition to the one for discussion. First your/froggy's link:
"Main Entry: 1de·bate
Pronunciation: di-'bAt, dE-
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
: a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides"
...then the other meaning:
"Main Entry: 2debate
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): de·bat·ed; de·bat·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French debatre, from Old French, from de- + batre to beat, from Latin battuere
Date: 14th century
intransitive senses
1 obsolete : FIGHT, CONTEND
2 a : to contend in words b : to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments
3 : to participate in a debate
transitive senses
1 a : to argue about b : to engage (an opponent) in debate
2 : to turn over in one's mind
synonym see DISCUSS
- de·bate·ment /-'bAt-m&nt/ noun
- de·bat·er noun"
...and compare it to "discussion":
"Main Entry: dis·cus·sion
Pronunciation: di-'sk&-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
2 : a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing"
Or in other words, debate is a match, while discussion is an exchange of viewpoints.
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 3 of 4 | |
|
|---|
Reply #41 Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:37 PM
I thought that debates and discussions are the same thing; the only deference is that the one is taking place in private and the other in front of public, and as long we can't have any private discussion in any message board, so we call our public discussions, debates.
I don't think that Brad, who likes very much debating, has nothing to do with "closed-minded spouting of opinions, supposedly backed up by "facts", in order to convince the audience", in fact, he has always very constructive purposes and he is not at all, a close minded guy who wants his unjustified view to be accepted as fact.
I am just improving my English
Thanks David for the compliment