People who think any way besides theirs is wrong

[Peppergirl]

A discussion where people are forced to re-examine their positions is a debate. A discussion where nobody changes their minds regardless is an argument. >.>

This. So much.

I was wholeheartedly annoyed by the "Pregnant woman arrested" thread because I was viewing at as circular conversation for awhile, but it served to change my mind on one point: I will never, EVER again consume food or a beverage in a store before paying for it. I've done it a time or two, but what happened to this woman, along with many of the negative comments surrounding eating food before paying, has made me re-evaluate my position.

Not a huge issue, of course. But a proper debate DOES work.

[Gravekeeper]

Andara is essentially correct in the intentions of my statement, actually. -.-

I have changed my mind about things based on debates, even if I did not change my ultimate position. But elaborating did not make for as snappy a statement. If you walk into a debate with a rigid mind, unable to accept even the possibility of anyone else's position, then its just going to be an argument. Even if only one person in said debate is doing it, its going to turn into an argument ( Thats an annoyance for another thread though ).

Gun control was a good example. I have not changed my position on it, but debating it here certainly made me change my mind about some of its proponants and admit they did indeed make good points based on their own personal situations. Even if you do not ultimately change your position, you must be at least be intially willing to try and see the perspective of the other side to understand what their position is.

[Rapscallion]

I get the feeling we're agreeing in different words on this one.

Rapscallion

[Gravekeeper]

I get the feeling we're agreeing in different words on this one.

It would appear so, yes.

[kibbles]

Andara is essentially correct in the intentions of my statement, actually. -.-

I have changed my mind about things based on debates, even if I did not change my ultimate position. But elaborating did not make for as snappy a statement. If you walk into a debate with a rigid mind, unable to accept even the possibility of anyone else's position, then its just going to be an argument. Even if only one person in said debate is doing it, its going to turn into an argument ( Thats an annoyance for another thread though ).

I agree with this..I guess my ultimate beef are with those people who think the other person is automatically wrong if they don't change their ultimate position because of their debate style.

[blas87]

It's slighty off topic, but I hate when people debate anything you have to say (in real life, not here) and their opinion is always the right one, simply because it's the more moral high ground superior way. Like my Brown Noser coworker who will contradict anything I have to say and insert his *right* opinion on it. Nothing I say is ever correct in his world, and he cannot wait to chime in and let me know. I swear, if only my bf had never left our shift, if he were there to hear this little fucker rip into me every time I talk, he'd have been fired for knocking that shit's teeth out. He used to do the same thing to my bf when we used to all work together. I only put up with it because I need the job and I've already complained about him and all my boss did was stick up for him and tell me I over-react.

Or people who think only their way of cleaning, raising children, whatever, is the right way. *shudder*

[kibbles]

I agree Blas, your coworker seems to disagree with you not simply because he truly believes you are wrong, but just as an excuse to argue and attempt to "look superior".

It's sad that your boss sticks up for him, would he stick up for you if you nitpicked everything coworker did??

[MrsEclipse]

The trickiest thing about debate is when there is no one right answer, but people can't agree on that fact.

The hardest thing about people in situations where there is no one right answer is the need to be vindicated. If option A, option B, and option C are all equally valid, or are correct under different circumstances, and Bert, Tom, and Bill all pick different options... Bert will think he's right in option A, and he won't realize it but that security will be threatened by Tom's faith in option B and Bill's support of option C. Bert will need to vindicate his position that option A is the best option by convincing Tom and Bill that A is better, while Tom and Bill will be going through the same thing with Bert as well as each other.

The hardest part is, people really don't realize that they're doing this. We've all done it over something at some point in our lives (don't even try to say you haven't, because you're either lying to us or yourself. You may know better now, of course, but you haven't always) and we don't always know which because, from our point of view, we aren't seeing A, B, and C as valid. We're seeing A as right and B and C as wrong, or less right. Some people are so divided that trying to convince someone that spanking is valid under certain circumstances is like trying to explain that 2+2=Your Mom, or that Applejack is really the best pony. We're not seeing that each pony has something special to offer to certain people. We're just seeing that Applejack doesn't have nearly as much going for her as the other five, and if you don't see that Pinkie Pie is truly the best pony, then you're watching the show wrong.

So, if Bert thinks Rainbow Dash is the best pony and Tom thinks Twilight Sparkle is, then Bert will think that Tom is wrong, and it's his job to show him otherwise. It's possible he may think (without realizing it) that he needs to defend the idea that Dash is the best, because Tom's liking of Twilight may make Rainbow Dash less awesome. His opinion may be rendered less right by the existence of others. Or, he needs people to know that he's right so that he himself can know he's right. How will he know for sure that Dash is the best pony if Tom and Bill disagree? Maybe... maybe she's not? But that conflicts with the fact that he knows she is.

Okay, this is what happens when I try to explain myself running the desktop pony program.

Anyway, I think that's a big part of problems like the ones in the OP. Most debates I run across are ones where people can't agree that multiple options have merit. A debate needs you to be able to open your mind, but I see a lot of threads here where people keep arguing their point against another point when the points aren't mutually exclusive.

[Rageaholic]

MrsEclipse: I get what you're saying. There are some opinions that are objective "the sky is blue", others subjective (favorite TV show), and others that are unknown (like religion and ethical issues). I think unknown opinions are the hardest to debate because one may think they have all the answers, but their evidence may be lacking.

The way I look at that, people can believe what they want, but they better not infringe on others rights to believe as they wish. If they're going to claim to have the absolute truth, they should give me undeniable proof or STFU. I shouldn't be obligated to believe something just because someone else thinks they have all the proof in the world. And that is exactly why there is nothing more frusturating than arguing with extreme religious people (you know the ones). They can't admit that they really don't have all the answers. In a way, it's the same with atheists who are absolutely certain there is no god. I may not like religion and a lot of their values, but I don't see the harm in someone believing in a higher power. Not everyone who does is going to take it to extremes that the religious right take it to.