What's the difference between discussion and debate?

[Amber]

Theory building (no disagreement allowed) vs. (contrary opinions welcome) ?

[bobtheskull]

Everyone who's posted has seemed to say that discussion is collaborative, and debate is with opposing views.
But I see some issues trying to split these on a board.
FOr instance, if you have a 'discussion' topic, does that mean no one is allowed to disagree? Might make for a very boring thread.
What if somone starts a 'discussion' topic on, say Murphy getting the Sword, and someone else wants to point out the virtues of Thomas getting it. Is that changing it to a debate?
Or if someone wants to debate Murphy/Thomas, does this mean a new thread has to be created specifically for that purpose?
I think most threads have a mixture of discussion/debate in them, and that works.
Everyone seems to have a different definition, and I worry that if we set a 'discussion corner', people will start reporting everything that doesn't seem to agree with their theory.

Case in point, I thought bobtheskull was happy to debate the topic with me, till he suddenly said he wasn't.

I wasn't.  As I said in the thread in question, I was pointing out a possible explaination of how magic would work in terms of summoning circles.  You started to debate on your own in a decision to rip apart my ideas without offering your own.

I felt I *had* to respond to your debate thrusts until I just said the heck with it, and it wasn't worth trying anymore.

Regarding the sword, it's a discussion until one person suggests Thomas should get it and why, and someone else starts tearing down their argument in order to prove why not.

Theory building (no disagreement allowed) vs. (contrary opinions welcome) ?

Contrary opinions are welcome, but how one states it is important.

Stating "you're wrong.  It can't be the way you describe it because..." is *generally* debate.

Obviously there might be exceptions, for example in a long discussion one might point out a fact that the other missed or forgot. (for example, in another thread here, a question arose as to wards on the doors to Harry's office in the books vs show.  There was discussion until someone was able to get the info specifically from the books.  I said something about how I seemed to remember there were, until someone else pointed out politely that it was static electricity that Harry had felt.)

Stating "I see what you mean.  I disagree though.  My own opinion on how this fictional magic would work is like this though." is discussion.

One is decidedly unfriendly and leads to angry retorts. The other generally doesn't.

Using statements such as (no offense intended here Lightsabre) such as "end of story" is a debate tactic used in dismissing the other's argument.  It comes across offensively. 

[ashton]

I gotta say, Ashton nails the difference between discussion and debate.

However, I don't really like how he used my nick here in the examples. I've never called anyone names here.  I called one person a hypocrite but it's hardly the same as calling someone stupid.

Ashton, did you really view my posts like that or were you simply writing an example?

Absolutely not. Nothing in my post should be construed as reflective of anyone's actual position. I was just going with the names from the thread. I love you all equally.

Hummus?

[Amber]

Debate isn't necessarily angry or unfriendly, bobtheskull.  I'm not sure I agree with that method of distinction.

[bobtheskull]

I gotta say, Ashton nails the difference between discussion and debate.

However, I don't really like how he used my nick here in the examples. I've never called anyone names here.  I called one person a hypocrite but it's hardly the same as calling someone stupid.

Ashton, did you really view my posts like that or were you simply writing an example?

Absolutely not. Nothing in my post should be construed as reflective of anyone's actual position. I was just going with the names from the thread. I love you all equally.

Hummus?

Thanks, but no Hummus until I get to know you better. I'm not that kind of guy.  (eep, now I wonder if there aren't unfortunate connotations to my chosen username.)

Thanks for clearing that up though. I didn't *think* I was posting in the manner of your example, but one can never be sure.

[DragonFire]

Everyone who's posted has seemed to say that discussion is collaborative, and debate is with opposing views.
But I see some issues trying to split these on a board.
FOr instance, if you have a 'discussion' topic, does that mean no one is allowed to disagree? Might make for a very boring thread.
What if somone starts a 'discussion' topic on, say Murphy getting the Sword, and someone else wants to point out the virtues of Thomas getting it. Is that changing it to a debate?
Or if someone wants to debate Murphy/Thomas, does this mean a new thread has to be created specifically for that purpose?
I think most threads have a mixture of discussion/debate in them, and that works.
Everyone seems to have a different definition, and I worry that if we set a 'discussion corner', people will start reporting everything that doesn't seem to agree with their theory.

Case in point, I thought bobtheskull was happy to debate the topic with me, till he suddenly said he wasn't.

I wasn't.  As I said in the thread in question, I was pointing out a possible explaination of how magic would work in terms of summoning circles.  You started to debate on your own in a decision to rip apart my ideas without offering your own.

Ok, two things. One please stop trying to paint me as an ogre who tried to come in and trash your house.
You posted a theory, I pointed out flaws.
And what did you think I was arguing? I was arguing my own views, ie thresholds are natural occurances, as with circles, and have nothing to do with belief.
It's all legit.

I felt I *had* to respond to your debate thrusts until I just said the heck with it, and it wasn't worth trying anymore.

I didn't force you to respond. You could have opted out of the discussion, or chosen not to respond. Please stop trying to make everything my fault.
you took part, you are partially to blame.

Regarding the sword, it's a discussion until one person suggests Thomas should get it and why, and someone else starts tearing down their argument in order to prove why not.

See here it is again. You can say 'tearing down an argument', but can you define it?

Theory building (no disagreement allowed) vs. (contrary opinions welcome) ?

Contrary opinions are welcome, but how one states it is important.

Stating "you're wrong.  It can't be the way you describe it because..." is *generally* debate.

Obviously there might be exceptions, for example in a long discussion one might point out a fact that the other missed or forgot. (for example, in another thread here, a question arose as to wards on the doors to Harry's office in the books vs show.  There was discussion until someone was able to get the info specifically from the books.  I said something about how I seemed to remember there were, until someone else pointed out politely that it was static electricity that Harry had felt.)

Yup, that was me.
As to the above, I don't see a difference between that and what you wrote below.
Same idea, different wording.

Stating "I see what you mean.  I disagree though.  My own opinion on how this fictional magic would work is like this though." is discussion.

Ok, so when does it turn into debate?
That's fine for intial statements, but person A will respond with why their theory is right, and person b will attempt to find flaws to disprove it.
Hence, disucssion becomes debate.
However, I see no difference(except wording) to the examples you posted.

One is decidedly unfriendly and leads to angry retorts. The other generally doesn't.
[
Using statements such as (no offense intended here Lightsabre) such as "end of story" is a debate tactic used in dismissing the other's argument.  It comes across offensively.  

You keep mentioning this 'end of story' quote I said to you. Once.
And it was, it was a fact, from the book. There could be no argument, cuase there was no grey area. I can accept I might have been a little rude to state it like that, but can we just let it go?
Please?

[Ghsdkgb]

Everyone who's posted has seemed to say that discussion is collaborative, and debate is with opposing views.
But I see some issues trying to split these on a board.
FOr instance, if you have a 'discussion' topic, does that mean no one is allowed to disagree? Might make for a very boring thread.
What if somone starts a 'discussion' topic on, say Murphy getting the Sword, and someone else wants to point out the virtues of Thomas getting it. Is that changing it to a debate?
Or if someone wants to debate Murphy/Thomas, does this mean a new thread has to be created specifically for that purpose?

Debates can occur withing a discussion without detracting from the discussion as a whole. Another qualifier might be that debates continue the opposing viewpoints for some time, whereas a person in a discussion takes the opposing viewpoint and integrates it into his own, allowing some parts to harmonize while others don't.

[bobtheskull]

One is decidedly unfriendly and leads to angry retorts. The other generally doesn't.
[
Using statements such as (no offense intended here Lightsabre) such as "end of story" is a debate tactic used in dismissing the other's argument.  It comes across offensively.  

You keep mentioning this 'end of story' quote I said to you. Once.
And it was, it was a fact, from the book. There could be no argument, cuase there was no grey area. I can accept I might have been a little rude to state it like that, but can we just let it go?
Please?

I used the phrase here as a specific example.  I even said "no offense intended" because I merely wanted to mention the phrase. I wasn't trying to paint you as an ogre for it.  And no, you hadn't used it on me in defense of a fact from a book.

There's some real confusion here between discussion and debate, which is why this thread exists.

[GnosisRoads]

Are we having a debate or a discussion on this thread? I would say both. We are trying to collaboratively define debates and discussions, but we have a number of disagreements and are arguing our various points on the matter. I think the whole thing is based on a false dichotomy. I agree with Lightsabre.

[DragonFire]

One is decidedly unfriendly and leads to angry retorts. The other generally doesn't.
[
Using statements such as (no offense intended here Lightsabre) such as "end of story" is a debate tactic used in dismissing the other's argument.  It comes across offensively.  

You keep mentioning this 'end of story' quote I said to you. Once.
And it was, it was a fact, from the book. There could be no argument, cuase there was no grey area. I can accept I might have been a little rude to state it like that, but can we just let it go?
Please?

I used the phrase here as a specific example.  I even said "no offense intended" because I merely wanted to mention the phrase. I wasn't trying to paint you as an ogre for it.  And no, you hadn't used it on me in defense of a fact from a book.

There's some real confusion here between discussion and debate, which is why this thread exists.

I think this is because discussion and debate are very similar.
Basically, I think the real difference is a debate has structure and rules, but discussion doesn't.
We've all been dicussing, not debating.
Debating has definitions, and timed rebuttals and all that.
Discussions don't.
Otherwise, I struggle to find a definition that isn't 'discussion means you can't disagree'.


Bobtheskull, maybe we are approching this wrong.
How do you characterise discussion???

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

I tip my hat to you, Ashton!  And now I'm really craving hummus...

Just so long as it does not become a requirement to drool over combining the concepts of "hummus" and "Angelina Jolie", because I'm very much on the "two great tastes that taste better separately" position there.

In theory. Not having met Ms. Jolie, and meaning her no disrespect either way.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Difference between discussion and debate really seems to be in the eye of the beholder, and I'd prefer not to have lines laid down that curtailed the civilised expression of differences of opinion when they arose naturally out of conversation. The vast majority of what I've seen since joining in the conversation here as struck me as eminently civilised, and I would worry somewhat that being self-conscious about an additional distinction might make it hard to have conversations flow as naturally and appealingly as they often do.

I wonder whether part of the problem might not be something I've seen recur in other online fora in different places, which is people from different areas or brought up in different cultures within the English-speaking world having distinctly different basic notions of what is and is not civil conversation, or hearing things with subtext differently from what was meant in them - I've personally lived in five different countries for significant lengths of time as an adult, and had a number of such issues come up, for example "If you say so", which seems to read very dismissively some places in NorAm, whereas in my home part of Ireland it's a neutral or mildly complimentary way of acknowledging that somebody probably knows better and you don't have the information to judge.

I have withdrawn from a couple of threads recently where continued argument appeared to be generating more heat than light.  As a suggestion for how to counter this, what would people think of the notion that, when a book-related discussion appears to be getting heated, the participants be requested to [ or ideally undertake of their own responsibility ] construct whatever position they are suggesting in a more formal manner, identifying what of their particular argument is actually stated in the text of the books in so many words, and what is a deduction from there and by what logic ?  I suggest this because a number of the more heated threads recently appear to hinge on people having different perceptions on what can be regarded as "fact" within the Dresdenverse.

[bobtheskull]

Difference between discussion and debate really seems to be in the eye of the beholder, and I'd prefer not to have lines laid down that curtailed the civilised expression of differences of opinion when they arose naturally out of conversation.

Maybe it is in the eye of the beholder and maybe it isn't.  Maybe there is actually a line one can cross from discussion to debate though.   The ones that cross that line are perhaps less likely to be able to define that line however.

It's a common theme in fiction and literature that the ones who crossed a line of some kind no longer really see that line being there.  The dirty cop, for example, that thinks he's still a good cop, even if he's taking a little dirty money every week. 

I'm not saying debaters are dirty, just that they crossed a line from discussion into debate.

The real difference between discussion and debate to me seems clear right now.  Discussion is when you are interested in the ideas of the group.  Debate is when you are more interested in proving your own point, sometimes to the extent of intellectual dishonesty either through concious intent or not. Sometimes, in debating thread, it's too convenient to make a vague all-or-nothing statement that somehow proves another poster as wrong.

If there's a risk of using a fallacious argument (straw man, ad hominem attack, etc), then chances are it's a debate.

I'm not asking to limit this board away from debate.  I think there are valid reasons to debate things.  I just don't want the risk of getting sucked into a debate on every post I make.

Perhaps that means I shall just have to get good at ignoring people who insist on it.  If it were ONLY me, I would.  Unfortunately, I've seen other people here and people on other boards get pounded on by people who are interested primarily in practicing their debating skills, and end up just either going away angry or deciding to only lurk.

It's kind of a problem on all boards.

[DragonFire]

Difference between discussion and debate really seems to be in the eye of the beholder, and I'd prefer not to have lines laid down that curtailed the civilised expression of differences of opinion when they arose naturally out of conversation.

Maybe it is in the eye of the beholder and maybe it isn't.  Maybe there is actually a line one can cross from discussion to debate though.   The ones that cross that line are perhaps less likely to be able to define that line however.

It's a common theme in fiction and literature that the ones who crossed a line of some kind no longer really see that line being there.  The dirty cop, for example, that thinks he's still a good cop, even if he's taking a little dirty money every week. 

I'm not saying debaters are dirty, just that they crossed a line from discussion into debate.

The real difference between discussion and debate to me seems clear right now.  Discussion is when you are interested in the ideas of the group.  Debate is when you are more interested in proving your own point, sometimes to the extent of intellectual dishonesty either through concious intent or not. Sometimes, in debating thread, it's too convenient to make a vague all-or-nothing statement that somehow proves another poster as wrong.

If there's a risk of using a fallacious argument (straw man, ad hominem attack, etc), then chances are it's a debate.

I'm not asking to limit this board away from debate.  I think there are valid reasons to debate things.  I just don't want the risk of getting sucked into a debate on every post I make.

Perhaps that means I shall just have to get good at ignoring people who insist on it.  If it were ONLY me, I would.  Unfortunately, I've seen other people here and people on other boards get pounded on by people who are interested primarily in practicing their debating skills, and end up just either going away angry or deciding to only lurk.

It's kind of a problem on all boards.

bobtheskull.
It's obvious you think very little of debating. I say this because your definition portrays a selfish person, here to cause trouble or swing their intellect around.
Using our little case as an example, I was discussing, not debating, by your logic.
I was interested in your idea, I saw several flaws in it, and I attempted to discuss with you, those flaws.
You, however, using your definition, were debating.
you were agreesively trying to prove your own point, and you certainly weren't interested in others ideas, at least in your dialog with me.
Moreover, in our little conversation, I was interested in the ideas of the group, you were hardly the first person I responded to on the thread.

Do you see what I mean about it being murky?

My worry is that we end up with 100 different people with 100 different definitions of 'discussion' all flaming, fighting and complaining to the mods that there is debate on a dicussion thread and vice versa.
When we post, when we put an idea up for discussion, we take the 'risk' of debate, of having to shore up, or admit to weaknesses in our ideas/theories.
It's a part of being on a board like this.

[Antimatter Girl]

Oy. It's good I haven't been cruising the boards as much lately, if things are getting vicious enough to warrant this kind of thread

How about this for a policy?

If things are getting heated, the mods tell the folks who are fighting to back away and cool off so that they can debate later, drop it, or take it into PMs. Maybe the mods could take a crack at mediation (like having someone summarize the other person's arguments) if they think it's necessary. Then, if the parties won't knock it off and play nice, the mods get to use their wonderful mod tools to slap the fighters or close the topic. I would recommend getting more volunteer mods if this kind of thing would be too much for the current staff, but other than the nerd!fury in TV land, I don't think there's been too much beyond the normal debate/discussion posturing.

I think most of us here are polite enough to know when enough is enough and follow something like that. But making a whole new class of thread or board seems like an extreme measure for what should be a matter of common sense and decency.

The nerd fury will die down eventually

Remember, just be polite and actually try to understand (read: open yourself up to the possibility of being convinced) where the other guy is coming from.