Why do you engage in debate?

why would you consider changing your opinion if you were right?

 

For one, there isn't always a right and wrong - just different opinions. Secondly, I think you should always analyze the other's argument in comparison to your own - not only to try & win the argument, but to see whether they have a point worthy of considering a change of your personal opinion.

 

most of the time there is a right and wrong, at least most of the things i discuss. plus i usually already know both sides better than the opposition.

are you so open minded that you are gonna be convinced, for example, that we should have an enforced official national language? or that abortions should be illegal because god hates it?

of course there are occasionally more complicated issues where you might slide your opinion one way or another (although i probably wouldnt), but on some issues, you are just clearly right and the only purpose of discussion is to teach the dummies.

my experience is that they never do. if they did, i would have thought of it.

 

I tend to think most things (atleast debated here) there is no specifically right side, but that there is one side that has a better argument for being right.

No. But if someone gives a good argument, I'll atleast consider their points and be willing to rethink my position.

 

thats a nice thing to say, but most arguments around here are simple. one person says flag burning is disrespectful and should be illegal. but they are wrong because free expression is more important than respect of symbols. and thats it, one person is right and the other wrong.

of course many issues are more complicated, but the right and wrong answers are still apparent.

 

I find it important to see why the other person thinks like they do. With the flag burning, it's obvious certain people (*cough, salty, cough*) are consumed with emotion on the subject and unable to be reasonable about constitutional freedoms. And even though it's incredibly doubtful salty could ever sway me in the slightest on that subject, atleast I understand why he feels like he does.

But at the same time, I wonder how they could possibly not understand what we're trying to say and agree with us. And I think it's because of people's unwillingness to accept other's argument and reconsider their position. I've never wanted to be that person, and so I always consider it during an argument.

 

Kind of my a$$. He's 100% certifiable. :hihi:

 

i wasnt trying to be funny, all that is true. i do know both sides. havent we all had these same discussion with friends and acquaintances many times over the years? havent you hashed out most of the nuances of the main arguments in the world today already?

of course i dont know all sides of everything, so i dont argue, i listen. for instance you seem to have some idea of how we should legalize immigrants to maintain the work force. i don't know anything, so i just listen to what you say about it and don't argue. if one day i have the whole thing figured out, maybe i will argue my side. but i dont have a side now. same thing with the schiavo issue. what do i know about who has the right to decide when to let that woman die? nothing. so i dont argue it.

earlier today i said "i am not sure. national id cards, cparso will have to start a thread on it so i can think about it.". i am not gonna debate that. i have no idea of why those things are needed or not. i dont argue.

there are other things, like the complexities of macroeconomics, i admit i dont understand that much either. i think the whole thing is so intricate and confusing that almost nobody can wrap their head around it.

but many issues are simple and i know them. i am right, and you should agree with me or be wrong. i dont need to play devil's advocate or waste time, for example like you did claiming there was something inconsistent about favoring the pro-life stance at the same time as the death penalty. we all know the reasoning, so why make anyone jump through hoop of mentioning it? i just tell you what you should think and that is it. i don thave any BS religious agenda or effort to make myself seem faux-sensitive about any issue. so i just figure out the answer and tell you.

you say i am a kook, i just think you are trying to describe me with a palindrome, and i appreciate that. next time try "goddamn mad dog". or say that i am "drab as a fool, aloof as a bard".