(December 17, 2008 at 6:37 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Yeah, yeah, you already made your point clear. In my words: to you decent behaviour is ultimately recognizable in surrender to your reasoning. As for me, you miss out on the emotional impact of defeat, the right to disagree and the difference between winning a debate as a mission and debating as a path to awareness. Let's leave it at that because otherwise someone might feel compelled to bow for rationalized feelings once again.No, to me decent behaviour is surrender to a point which has been demonstrated as false. In most topics, this will never happen because we talk about philosophy more than anything, but for instance, in a conversation about Evolution, we can use accurate science to show that the evidence is conclusive. If the person refuses to accept the evidence, then there is no point in continuing the debate with them, as they have shown a complete unwillingness to consider evidence to the contrary of their position.
Daystar was an example of this, as he constantly argued against Evolution without actually understanding the subject, and ignoring all the reports we showed to him. This is completely different to when he argued against our positions as atheists, as this is a philosophical issue, and as such cannot have an absolute answer.
