The point or the words?

Such is the nature of debate. When the topic is as hot as politics, you can't just blurt unsubstantiated things out and expect someone not to call you on it. You need to be able to back up what you post, and "I heard a couple people say" is not good enough. You need to provide concrete, reliable sources for your arguments or observations.
It's hard to do in a fast paced environment like this, where you may get mad and try to make your point before you have all your ducks in a row. That's why some time is spent on the way people post in addition to what they posted.
I find it facinating, personally. I don't know enough about politics to get involved, but I sure do love watching a good debate.

Additionally, it is often a tactic in such exchanges to divert one's opponent by attacking the construction of the post rather than its content. Another aspect of that is to divert the discussion because one doesn't wish to discuss that topic, or to see others discuss it.

McGentrix, you used a plural pronoun to take the place of your singular subject. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, and nothing you write should be taken seriously in any context by anyone ever.

(In case it wasn't obvious, that's a joke. I just saw an opportunity.)

What is more troublesome, is we spend more time pointing out incorrect spelling than incorrect logic...

Sometimes the words ARE the debate. When does a "human being" become a "human being" is the whole basis of the abortion debate.

When unintelligent people fight back because the don't like other peoples ideas, they often have to result to measures like name calling and emotional statements like "HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT!", as well as your said critism of chosen words.

Less intelligent people get taught a certain way to think and certain ideas to believe when they are young. Then when they are challenged by more intelligent people later in life, unable to provide reasons why the intelligent people are wrong they attack them in any manner they can. Often, this results in the said name calling and word critisism.

When more intelligent people get critisised for their ideas, they work out why they are right (or realise they're not), and defend their ideas with their own valid points. As opposed to looking for stupid things like whats wrong with the post or what names they can call the critics.

This forum has brought me to realise this. You watch a heated debate thread progress and you often see the more intelligent people making valid points, and the idiots starting to use labels.

Thats my insight anyway

That's not entirely correct, RaceDriver.

Labels are actually used when one side is exasperated of the other. Intelligent people also end up using labels.

This is true. But I would say that on the whole the less intelligence the more the reliance on labels.

Precisely.

ceasar... wrote


Good point. But a certain amount of semantics quarreling is neccesary if a debate is to be as rewarding as possible to all involved. For my part the aim of any debate is a deeper understanding and knowledge of what is debated, and unless words are strictly defined and understood by all parts it will breed nothing but unsteady compromises and frustration.

Take the word "god" for instance. One of the main reasons that debates concerning god and spirituality so often become absurdely misinterpeted is that the key words are very losely defined.

But there are many kinds of debate. Some in the spirit of reconciliation, where we listen to understand. Others are debates for favor or creed, where we stand in oposition, not to understand but to disarm and convince.

Well, can't it just be the fact that some people like to argue. It might also be that when you hear words, you interpret them in your own way and therefore when people try to explain themselves you think of it as trying to take it back

Well, can't it just be the fact that some people like to argue. It might also be that when you hear words, you interpret them in your own way and therefore when people try to explain themselves you think of it as trying to take it back

Well, can't it just be the fact that some people like to argue. It might also be that when you hear words, you interpret them in your own way and therefore when people try to explain themselves you think of it as trying to take it back

This would be an example :

A girl asked a guy if he thought she was pretty, He said...no

She asked him if he would want to be with her forever.... and he said no.

She then asked him if she were to leave would he cry, and once again he replied with a no.

She had heard enough.

As she walked away, tears streaming down her face

The boy grabbed her arm and said....

You're not pretty you're beautiful.

I don't want to be with you forever. I NEED to be with you forever.

And I wouldn't cry if you walked away...I'd die...

Hey, that's beautiful.

But anyway, I think it comes down to how you listen to an argument. When you speak to people you can tell almost right away. There are two ways of listening.

One is listening to disarm, in wich case you will only hear what you need to hear in order to trivialize facts and arguments for the gain of your own cause. Politicians are not, it seems to me, capable of any other kind of listening.

The other is to listen to understand, in wich case you will be patient and curious. This is, to me, the only way of ever understanding something. Also, following this course, you will be able to counter any argument you meet that you find worth countering. It just might be, you know, that the person you're talking to has a more sensible approach to it than you.

Developing a cogent argument is time consuming and requires significant skill and knowledge. Attacking words or labels or trivial matters are easy and require little of the demands of good argumentation.

Trivial pursuit permits an individual to make their mark without significant effort.

Coberst, I am not sure I agree entirely with your sensible assertation. The problem I get stuck upon is the part about significant skill and knowledge.

For one, the tuning of your skill defines the product of it's activity in the same way that a painter's skill leaves it's mark on his paintings. So unless you can at some point bypass this ability, truth will remain something tainted by subjectivity.

Also, to determine the significance of knowledge is to determine the course of your quest.