Why is there a debating contest on ATS ?

I have to wonder why there is a debating contest on a site whos subject matter requires not debate but investigation. Hypotheticaly speaking, if a video is proven false then it remains so regardless of the ramblings of the blowhards on thier soapboxes? If ignorance is truely to be denied, why not admit that debate is less useful than investigation , and get the hell on with that instead ? Or is this debating section just for folks who dont like progress but wished they had gone into politics ?
Incedentaly , thats not meant in an insulting fashion, and if you take it like that, you will get ignored anyway so dont waste your time

[edit on 30-12-2009 by TrueBrit]

reply to post by TrueBrit


I think some of the debates go great .

Two opposing sides , points - counterpoints

They take all of the emotion out of the topic , and use facts.

I have to agree. I have read quite a few of them.

They usually have well thought out replies in a format that is readable and devoid of distracting, and sometimes annoying interferences.

It lays out two sides of opinion in a clear manner, leaving the reader to better be able to make an opinion of their own based on the facts rather than, as you stated, the emotions.

I find reading the debates rather enjoyable!

Originally posted by TrueBrit
If ignorance is truely to be denied, why not admit that debate is less useful than investigation , and get the hell on with that instead ? Or is this debating section just for folks who dont like progress but wished they had gone into politics ?


[edit on 30-12-2009 by TrueBrit]

Pure investigation is in order to generate facts/data, but the purpose of the facts/data is to generate theories/conclusions. For things posted on ATS investigation can only take us so far, the facts alone only lead people to develope ideas about what is actually going on. It is these conclusions/theories that are matters of debate, and rightfully so. There is little value in just listing observations and stopping there(i.e. investigation only), but there is tremendous value in developing theories based on observations.

Theories/conclusions are rarely self-evident or obvious and are generally a matter of intrepretation of evidence, hense the debate. Debate is not something reserved only for the realm of politicians. Scientists debate. That's how progress is made in understanding.

reply to post by OnceReturned


Surely good quality data has only one logical outcome? I fail to see why debate is nessacary when solid investigation (which includes an outcome when performed by eligable persons) can provide truth on its own merits?

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by OnceReturned

 

Surely good quality data has only one logical outcome? I fail to see why debate is nessacary when solid investigation (which includes an outcome when performed by eligable persons) can provide truth on its own merits?

If you fail to see why debate is necessary then why are you arguing the point? Can't you see the hole you've dug for yourself? If you agree with your original premise the best you can hope to do is sit back and hope all who enter this thread engage in pointless debate to prove your point, but the minute you begin arguing the point you instantly undermine your original argument.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by OnceReturned

 

Surely good quality data has only one logical outcome? I fail to see why debate is nessacary when solid investigation (which includes an outcome when performed by eligable persons) can provide truth on its own merits?

Data is often insufficient, contradictory or just not urbane to the debate when it comes to issues that are more based on opinion, morality or culture.

Truth on it's own merits would be considered factual information, however a debate doesn't have to end at simple data.

Simple facts, regardless of how accurate, cannot replace the act of debating. It is a skillset and a talent that is practiced in many aspects of life. It is a social mechanism by which people communicate and connect. It allows us to influence others even when they might not agree with us. It also requires that we hear and actually listen to anothers opinion with objectivity and not emotion. We learn to reserve our opinions to consider the ideas that others have.

Debate is listening, communicating, learning and responding.

This is an important part of what allows humans to understand each other.



[edit on 30-12-2009 by badgerprints]

Originally posted by TrueBrit
Surely good quality data has only one logical outcome? I fail to see why debate is nessacary when solid investigation (which includes an outcome when performed by eligable persons) can provide truth on its own merits?

Well, it would be nice if good quality data had only one logical outcome and debate was unecessary. Unfortunately, it is clear that that is not the case. For any set of data, there are multiple possible explanations. The more and the better the data, the more explanations can be ruled out, but no data set no matter how extensive can confirm with 100% certain a single explanation/theory. In fact, evidence and observations can ONLY be used with 100% certainty to disconfirm theories, never to confirm them. Philosopher of science have considered these questions extensively and what I have touched on here can be shown to be true in a deep logical sense. Also the realities of scientific and legal and political debate going on constantly can be taken as a strong empirical indication that observation and investigation alone is not enough.

The problem of induction:
en.wikipedia.org...

Scientific Theory:
en.wikipedia.org...

Philosophy of Science:
en.wikipedia.org...

Scientific Method:
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 30-12-2009 by OnceReturned]

Debates make it interesting, if everyone agreed on everything I said; I would be suspicious, after I get over that suspicion I would either think that I was right, or continuing the debate due to questioning myself


-"Round tables are better than rectangle tables".
-"No, rectangle tables are better than round tables".
-"Okay, lets compromise, how about an oval table"?
-"Nah, I prefer the rectangle table".
-"Why? Why not the round table or the oval table"?
-"Because neither are rectangle"!
-"But an oval shape is a rectangular and circle shape as one".
-"Its still not rectangle"!
-"Ahhhhhh! What about a square table then"?
-"It's...still...not...rectangle"

(The debate lasted until both parties collapsed on the floor)


[edit on 30/12/2009 by the_denv]

reply to post by TrueBrit

Why is there a debating contest on ATS ?

A question I once wondered about too... but I have since learned that it is both a display of knowledge and that of the ability to disagree without lethal weapons or spattering each others monitor screens with spit.

Personally, I prefer limited debates with more than two debaters... kind of like what the Roman Senate used to called 'Open Forum'. But I do enjoy reading these here as the competitors are usually quite well read and know their chit.

Because it's fun.

And educational - mostly in a debate, you will be given subject matter you are not familiar with, or you will have to debate a side of an argument you don't believe in/agree with.

What better educational tool could there be when it comes to denying ignorance?

It's also a really cool way to get to know some of your fellow members, who you may not usually interact with - and at the end of the day, we are as much a community as we are a discussion board, so this makes sense.

Of course you have the option NOT to debate or get to know other members - in which case, what's the problem?

reply to post by TrueBrit


You know I had this whole shpeal lined up and even an animated gif of Socrates spinning in his grave ... but I think this explains it much better (serious explicit warning):

reply to post by schrodingers dog



You been working out SD?

Simply put, the debate contest proves that two sides of an argument can be put forward in a courteous, civil manner, which is essentially what ATS is all about.

It is the epitomy of the T&C, and also a way to extend writing and communication skills, as well as gain extra knowledge on a subject that you may not - up until it arises in the tournament - know anything about.

That, and its fun Like mental chess.

reply to post by neformore


If you want me to go on debating, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by neformore

 

If you want me to go on debating, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

"That was never 5 minutes just then."

reply to post by schrodingers dog


I paid for the full half hour.

reply to post by schrodingers dog

"A debate is like verbal chess"

That is one hell of a quote man!

So true, so true.

reply to post by TrueBrit


Debates take place on toics that the competitors are not usually familiar with. On many occasions we argue points that we may not necessairly agree with or believe in (once I had to defend scientology, bleh). Its all part of denying ignorance in the end, as we educate ourselves from both sides during debates.

If you dont like it, there's plenty of other threads on the ATS boards that look like they are written by dyslexic chimps with no research whatsoever. You may enjoy those more

Reply to post by TrueBrit

You're not required to "get it". Your ideology rules against you "getting it". But I'll try, life is seldom as black and white as true or false. There are distinctions despite what you may think. Thus philosophy and debate.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com