Yes, but not all class it this way. How is your way superior?

I disagree with the premise of your first statement. If we do it for ourselves, we might as well enjoy it. Honestly, if you think even the majority of people here do it so people can read their debates, you are mistaken. People converse here because conversing is what people do. They don't have to have integrity or live up to anyone's standards. My absolute favorite thing about this place is that you can see it differently than others and it does not fucking matter. This place is not for any one person to govern. Furthermore, it is not a debate forum. It is a discussion forum. Debates sometimes happen.

(July 29, 2012 at 1:44 am)Shell B Wrote: Yes, but not all class it this way. How is your way superior?

I disagree with the premise of your first statement. If we do it for ourselves, we might as well enjoy it. Honestly, if you think even the majority of people here do it so people can read their debates, you are mistaken. People converse here because conversing is what people do. They don't have to have integrity or live up to anyone's standards. My absolute favorite thing about this place is that you can see it differently than others and it does not fucking matter. This place is not for any one person to govern. Furthermore, it is not a debate forum. It is a discussion forum. Debates sometimes happen.

I didn't say it was. Its simply my way and I've presented it as such.
I do it for myself partially but if thats the only reason then I feel I've missed the point. I am an Atheist partially because I have concluded everyone is fallible, including myself. I depend on the feedback of others to judge whether my points are understood, well phrased and relevant. That is how I improve.
I debate so I may learn from others and others may learn from me.

If I walk away from a debate with nothing more than an insulting dismissal I have failed in that obligation. At that point inferior and childish shock tactics have prevailed over a reasoned argument.

How can they "prevail" if they a reasoned argument was never possible in the first place? Telling the difference between someone who can debate you without pettiness and someone who cannot is key. I have disagreed and debated with almost every, if not every, person who I consider a friend or at least a friendly acquaintance here. It never ends poorly. I have also disagreed with people who think debating means shaming everyone into taking their stance or using strawmen to discredit their opponents. A reasoned argument was never an option with these people.

Anyway, you just said it was inferior and childish. You have clearly put your method above that of others. Sorry.

(July 29, 2012 at 2:34 am)Shell B Wrote: How can they "prevail" if they a reasoned argument was never possible in the first place? Telling the difference between someone who can debate you without pettiness and someone who cannot is key. I have disagreed and debated with almost every, if not every, person who I consider a friend or at least a friendly acquaintance here. It never ends poorly. I have also disagreed with people who think debating means shaming everyone into taking their stance or using strawmen to discredit their opponents. A reasoned argument was never an option with these people.

Anyway, you just said it was inferior and childish. You have clearly put your method above that of others. Sorry.

They prevail in derailing their opponents usual process, this in their eyes is a victory. It ensures the original query is washed away in a sea of insults and hot air. This is the death of the debate and the beginning of a petty squabble. I see this as a failure on my part if I allow this to happen. Someone employing the insulting deflection method cannot stand against a sustained, reasonable and unrelenting argument that demands nothing less than an honest retort.

"Anyway, you just said it was inferior and childish."
Inferior and childish in that it is no longer a debate if the method succeeds. I think debate is one of the most worthwhile things you can participate in with others. Do you not agree that the attempt to destroy such a thing is inferior and childish? I imagine most reasonable people would.

I think you are taking this too seriously.

(July 29, 2012 at 8:55 am)Shell B Wrote: I think you are taking this too seriously.

Which part?
The fact we're talking about whether its right to debate for the right to debate despite the plight leaving threads in a state?
Perhaps, I'm fairly certain that if we continued this much longer I could stretch the description of our conversation out into a fairly pleasing tongue twister but I think my points still stand.
The great debaters we've all seen on youtube never get to just walk off muttering "idiot" under their breath. Obviously we're not remotely comparable to them but why should that mean we are allowed a free pass they are not?
The way I see it if I've taken up a corner in a debate I should be fighting in it until the debate is concluded either through a victory, a loss, an understanding or a retreat. Thats my opinion anyway.

This isn't a debate forum!

I think you are taking people's participation in this forum too seriously. The very idea that we would need a "free pass" or that this is "win or lose" is ridiculous, in my opinion. Even the fact that we should be compared to the "great debaters of youtube (lmao)" is kind of silly. I don't mean to deride you. It's just weird that you are holding us to any standard at all.

(July 29, 2012 at 9:38 am)Shell B Wrote: This isn't a debate forum!

I think you are taking people's participation in this forum too seriously. The very idea that we would need a "free pass" or that this is "win or lose" is ridiculous, in my opinion. Even the fact that we should be compared to the "great debaters of youtube (lmao)" is kind of silly. I don't mean to deride you. It's just weird that you are holding us to any standard at all.

Fair enough.
However, I feel I should point out when I referred to debaters on youtube I meant people like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc etc. Its not that I don't feel this was understood its just when you said "the great debaters of youtube" instead of "on youtube" I got a bewildering image of a strange, mysterious and snowy landscape existing in the darkest depths of cyber-space where talkative Centaurs and other magical creatures roam to converse on matters of existentialism and the meaning of life.
I want to make doubly sure I'm not accused of thinking youtube is similar to Narnia.

(July 29, 2012 at 9:38 am)Shell B Wrote: This isn't a debate forum!

I think you are taking people's participation in this forum too seriously. The very idea that we would need a "free pass" or that this is "win or lose" is ridiculous, in my opinion. Even the fact that we should be compared to the "great debaters of youtube (lmao)" is kind of silly. I don't mean to deride you. It's just weird that you are holding us to any standard at all.

I think that anyone who values reason and critical thinking should take the time to seriously question their beliefs (which means taking the kinds of questions that get asked on this forum seriously); anyone who values knowledge should attempt to cultivate as much of it as possible (which means not wasting opportunities to learn).

Who wants to live an unexamined life?

That is irrelevant. People can live their lives as they see fit and participate here however they want within the rules.