Cheaters

[DrFaroohk]

Not just any cheaters...but the ones who cheat at the rules of discussion!

I wish there was like a clear cut set of rules for discussion, debate, arguing, whatever you want to call it. And if you violate those rules, you automatically lose the debate (even if you're technically right).

For instance, interupting. If you interrupt someone, you automatically lose. everyone has the right to be heard and make their point.

If you try to change the topic, you lose. If you wished to debate this very topic with me, and pointed out that I misspelled "interrupting" in the above paragraph, you would automatically lose, because that has nothing to do with this debate.

If you ignore something that was said, and create your own interpretation of things, just to suit your argument, you lose.

Any others?

[the_std]

If you try to change the topic, you lose. If you wished to debate this very topic with me, and pointed out that I misspelled "interrupting" in the above paragraph, you would automatically lose, because that has nothing to do with this debate.

If you ignore something that was said, and create your own interpretation of things, just to suit your argument, you lose.

Any others?

So, basically, if you're a human being, you lose?

Not everyone will "create" interpretations specifically to suit their argument. A lot of people simply interpret things, with the intention of it being valid to the debate, and they misinterpret because they're not mind readers? How do you separate the intention of doing it on purpose versus just misunderstanding like people do every freaking day?

There are no rules to these things for a good reason. Because everyone has different understandings of what a debate is. People don't think exactly the same way, which is why these debates happen in the first place. The fact that you want to create rules would completely negate the whole idea of debate in the first place. The main intention of creating rules in adult situations like this is because the person creating those rules is tired of losing and want people to do things their way. Kind of sad.

For instance, interupting. If you interrupt someone, you automatically lose. everyone has the right to be heard and make their point.

Uhm, no. No one has the right to anything when it comes to discussions between two people. There is nothing written ANYWHERE ratifying the right for you not to be interrupted. It's not even a basic human right, like being decent to your fellow man. It's just... Not.

[DrFaroohk]

No, in the context of a fair discussion, people should have the right to make their point.

Imagine what kind of debate this would be:

Me: The world is flat.

You: No, scientists have-

Me: SILENCE, FOOL! The earth is flat.

You: You're wr-

Me: SHHH! I'll not hear another word of your godless lies! The earth is flat.

You: But -

Me: ZIP IT!

You: <sigh>

Me: I WIN! I WIN! I WIN! YAY FOR ME!

And now, imagine everyone siding with ME on it. Obviously this is not an important argument, but if it was something important, like trying to persuade your boss that you really aren't sleeping with his wife or stealing from the company?

[Andara Bledin]

Why would anyone even attempt to debate with someone who obviously has no interest in debating or even learning? Your example is flawed beyond reason or your imagined would-be debater likes tilting at windmills.

If you really want debate with rules, join a forensics club as that's about the only place you'll get what you say you want.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

First: AAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGH! I had a nice long post all typed up, going through the OP point by point... and lost it all because the internet connection was taking a brief nap when I clicked the Post button. Trying again... and if this version seems particularly ill-tempered, that may have something to do with it

I wish there was like a clear cut set of rules for discussion, debate, arguing, whatever you want to call it. And if you violate those rules, you automatically lose the debate (even if you're technically right).

Well, for starters, discussion, debate, and arguing are not all the same thing. And second, "even if you're right, you're still wrong" is a horrible technique that's already over-used without establishing it as a rule.

For instance, interupting. If you interrupt someone, you automatically lose. everyone has the right to be heard and make their point.

Some people just talk too long. Some people make multiple points in a row without giving a break for a response. Some people make their point, then meander all over the place or repeat themselves for the next ten minutes without adding anything of substance. Some people pause in such a way that it *seems* like a safe place to speak without interrupting, then go on again. All of these people complain if you butt in, or appear to, and all of them are being unreasonable in doing so. Particularly in spoken communication, by the time you get done with your sermon the other person will likely have forgotten much of what you've said, much less their perfectly legitimate responses that you didn't allow them to make because you wouldn't shut up and give them a chance.

If you try to change the topic, you lose. If you wished to debate this very topic with me, and pointed out that I misspelled "interrupting" in the above paragraph, you would automatically lose, because that has nothing to do with this debate.

Specifically, the example you gave is not, by itself, a change of subject. It's an aside. It only becomes a change of subject if YOU then respond by complaining about the correction, or if the only answers you get (allowing for more than two people in the conversation) are repeatedly of that nature.

Beyond that, side items are often necessary corrections. Spelling doesn't generally matter (unless either you write a different word than you meant, changing the meaning, or else are such a bad speller that it's hard to read) but if, instead, it's an untrue statement, illogical conclusion, over-generalization, baseless assumption, etc then it usually *needs* correcting for progress to continue.

If you ignore something that was said, and create your own interpretation of things, just to suit your argument, you lose.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. If everyone has the same interpretation of things, then you already agree, so no debate. Or maybe you mean something like discarding an analogy you made in favor of another? But there are perfectly good reasons for doing that, too. Perhaps they don't believe your analogy is correct, or that it illustrates the problem well. Perhaps they just think that what you said is such hopeless nonsense that there's nowhere to begin in sorting it out except to start afresh.

Anyway, not all conversations are debates. If you start talking about how flat (or otherwise) the earth is, and the person you're with doesn't want to get into that and so keeps bringing up the weather or their favorite TV show or baseball team or whatever, take the hint But even aside from that, conversations naturally flow from subject to subject. So if the other person (or people) see what you're having as a conversation, but as soon as it happens to shift even slightly from what YOU want to talk about you start throwing rules around, well... you're not going to have many people willing to talk.

[the_std]

And now, imagine everyone siding with ME on it. Obviously this is not an important argument, but if it was something important, like trying to persuade your boss that you really aren't sleeping with his wife or stealing from the company?

A few things:

1) If the person you are "debating" with seriously considers that winning, you are not having a debate and they are not worth your time.
2) Creating your "rules" would not solve the problem, as that person will think they've won no matter what you do, no matter how much you point at the rule book.
3) I don't know who you're having to deal with on a regular-enough basis as to have to come up with a whole set of rules that "debates" like that, but either they are a complete and utter moron, or you're doing something to incite them into debating like that. Because I have been on a debate team, I've been a shit-stirrer, and I've been involved with a ton of debates with a ton of different personality types, and I've never run into someone like your example who is actually having any kind of "debate".
4) Your other examples, like I've quoted, are not real debates or anything you can set rules on. Trying to convince the boss you haven't slept with his wife? That is such an emotional situation that rules would not apply. You could be presenting your case, and he interrupts to yell, "I KNOW IT WAS YOU, ASSHOLE!" and then you say, "Ha, I win, you interrupted me, therefore I'm right even if I was sleeping with your wife!" Life just does not work that way, and trying to impose rules will not make you any more right. You're allowed to think that it would, however.

[DrFaroohk]

So I do concur a lot of my points are not really feasible, although people still piss me off a lot. I readily admit, I just don't like it when the conversation gets hijacked. Or when I'm not given a fair chance in said conversation.

It'd be like coming across a thread about the best way to facilitate some sort of wrong-doing. One person argues that it's best to do it this way, one guy says it's best to do it another way, and most of the discussion is based around their points....

...and then someone with a less than stellar IQ comes along and starts talking about how we shouldn't be wrong-doing. Because it's wrong.

Well that's all good and well, sir, except you're in the wrong room. If you want to start your own discussion about the ethics of wrong-doing, that's awesome. Go ahead. I support you. Go for it! But THIS thread is about how to get away with it.

[HYHYBT]

How about an easy way to get the desired result without the wrong-doing? OR... what if it's less than obvious that those discussing how know it's wrong, or that they're not actually making plans?