the futility of debate

oddfellow · Post by **oddfellow** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:33 pm

Parson wrote:truth comes from all sorts of ways.

debate is not one of them.

Do you class debate and discussion as the same thing?

spooKs · Post by **spooKs** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:33 pm

Parson wrote:truth comes from all sorts of ways.

debate is not one of them.

in your opinion

gwa · Post by **gwa** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:33 pm

The truth comes from TED.

Pistonsbeneath · Post by **Pistonsbeneath** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:34 pm

Parson wrote:debate away guys!

thanks for giving your permission...phew

by making this thread you are debating further

you are carrying on from the last thread

making this thread is you making a point therefore debating

I still like you though....it would be boring if we were all the same but I think your attitude towards people (well me in the last thread) is inconsistent with your left wing hippy ethos..

I have friends far more left wing than me but they are at least consistent..

I am not a bad person yet you accused me of being the 'arguing type'

elbe · Post by **elbe** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:34 pm

but through debate you can often reach a clearer understanding, through debate you can change peoples minds.

whats more egotistical is believing you have the ultimate truth. even more so if you are unwilling to enter into debate about it.

parson · Post by **parson** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:34 pm

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. "

Noam Chomsky

Pistonsbeneath · Post by **Pistonsbeneath** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:35 pm

spooKs wrote:in your opinion

I agree...

parson · Post by **parson** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:35 pm

eLBe wrote:but through debate you can often reach a clearer understanding, through debate you can change peoples minds.

sure can change people's minds. i'm sure dick cheney changes people's minds all the time.

debate is a very effective tool, but it has nothing to do with truth.

oddfellow · Post by **oddfellow** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:37 pm

Parson wrote:"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. "

Noam Chomsky

But what if the debate is not limited?

parson · Post by **parson** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:37 pm

which is why it is useless in regards to truth.

edit: i thought you said what debate is not limited.

if there are no limits, then it is like a bottomless pit. you will spend the rest of your life entangled in arguments that lead nowhere.

Pistonsbeneath · Post by **Pistonsbeneath** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:38 pm

Parson wrote:
eLBe wrote:but through debate you can often reach a clearer understanding, through debate you can change peoples minds.
sure can change people's minds. i'm sure dick cheney changes people's minds all the time.

debate is a very effective tool, but it has nothing to do with truth.

ok then I guess there is no point listening to any of your points you are quite clearly making in this thread as they have

Parson wrote:nothing to with truth

parson · Post by **parson** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:39 pm

thank you for clarifying my point.

elbe · Post by **elbe** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:46 pm

Parson wrote: debate is a very effective tool, but it has nothing to do with truth.

Agreed

They are two separate enterties. It is not important that debate does not lead to the truth, what is important is what does lead to the truth, in fact what is the truth? Is there a single truth? peoples views on what is true can vary, who is to say which account is more accurate?

Does this then mean that there is simply no truth or that there are an infinite truths?

parson · Post by **parson** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:47 pm

that's a different discussion.

this one is about the futility of debate.

if everybody wants to concede, i'm open to changing the topic.

oddfellow · Post by **oddfellow** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:48 pm

Parson wrote:which is why it is useless in regards to truth.

edit: i thought you said what debate is not limited.

if there are no limits, then it is like a bottomless pit. you will spend the rest of your life entangled in arguments that lead nowhere.

I do see what you mean. Many a drunken night has been wasted by me and my friends simply shouting at each other. But then again I was arguing with my friend on and off for about two weeks in regard to diet and that completely changed my mind about it.

parson · Post by **parson** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:48 pm

the surest way to find truth is telepathically :]

there are no lies with telepathy.

parson · Post by **parson** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:50 pm

Tomity wrote:
Parson wrote:which is why it is useless in regards to truth.

edit: i thought you said what debate is not limited.

if there are no limits, then it is like a bottomless pit. you will spend the rest of your life entangled in arguments that lead nowhere.
I do see what you mean. Many a drunken night has been wasted by me and my friends simply shouting at each other. But then again I was arguing with my friend on and off for about two weeks in regard to diet and that completely changed my mind about it.

well if you conceded, you're lucky if your friend was on the side of truth.

oddfellow · Post by **oddfellow** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:50 pm

Parson wrote:the surest way to find truth is telepathically :]

there are no lies with telepathy.

Its a bit intrusive though. I don't want any of you looking into my brain

parson · Post by **parson** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:50 pm

it is VERY intrusive. and VERY humbling.
that's why it is best to be habitually truthful.

d-T-r · Post by **d-T-r** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:51 pm

closed minded debates with the intention to just to 'win' or disprove the other person arent useful....even when the 'facts' are available.

when both parties are open and when the communication is flowing without blockages, the truth will eventually surface. if you know something to really be true, the power someone has telling you 'its not true' doesnt effect you. people only get a bit heated up when part of them deep down believes in the possibility that they may be wrong. which is very painful for the ego to admit. the key is to not define or 'think' about too closely what you belive or know. defining your own mindstates or beliefs of what 'is' only sets restrictions on what 'can' be.

most debates tend not to be too beneficial because the content delivery isnt timed too well , regardless of which truths reside inside. if you have something valid to say, dont take away from the full potential 'impact' of that truth by revealing it prematurely.

If it is not truthful and not helpful, don't say it.
If it is truthful and not helpful, don't say it.
If it is not truthful and helpful, don't say it
if it is truthful and helpful, wait for the right time.

the futility of debate

Who is online