What's the difference between discussion and debate?

[Amber]

I just don't want the risk of getting sucked into a debate on every post I make.

No one can make you "debate" (by your definition, certainly not mine) anything.  It is your choice to make if you allow yourself to be engaged in debate. 

[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.

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.

First off, I never "complained" to a mod about you or anyone else.   Our little exchange was noticed by Iago, probably all on his own, and he came in to ask us to play nice.

When it gets to the level of fighting and flaming, it's obviously not from discussions.  When someone feels the urge to use "idiot" in response to a post, it's not a discussion.

Second, I quit posting in that thread when it was obvious you wanted to debate.  You even indicated you were interested in debating.  You used words such as "Irrelevant" and tried to put words in my mouth:

"Let's suppose several 'Gods' got together and agreed how magic would work, which is what you are talking about here."

You tried to make blanket statements such as "But people don't believe this. " as fact regardless of whether it was true.  I'd made a general statement about people in all ages thinking belief affects reality, and you tried to tear it down completely by simply saying "But people don't believe this." without actually understanding it.

You stated
"Because Faith is a magic all of it own, and the cross doesn't symbolise what Harry believes in. the pentacle does.
When Harry uses the pentacle, he is simply employing another sort of magic."
in an attempt to show how my suggestions of belief could affect magic was wrong, without actually ever suggesting an alternate theory.

You could have instead said "I don't agree with your idea and theories on magic.  I'll focus on someone ELSE'S theories that I like better."  rather than work to tear down my suggestions.  There's room for more than one theory in the thread.

You were simply going for points.  You weren't interested in discussion.  You've made at least one other person on this board wish to never have bothered posting.

[bobtheskull]

I just don't want the risk of getting sucked into a debate on every post I make.

No one can make you "debate" (by your definition, certainly not mine) anything.  It is your choice to make if you allow yourself to be engaged in debate. 

No, but when certain users seem to take delight in responding to every post with which they disagree with posts that can be classified as debating, it tends to drive others away.

Yes, I could simply ignore it and not let myself get caught up, but sometimes it sneaks up on people.  A certain thread, for example, where one person posted their thoughts on a topic, and a debater jumped in to respond.  The OP tried to defend his statements because he just wanted to express himself.  He didn't realize that he was getting dragged into a debate.

The same bloody thing happened to me in a topic about how some aspect of magic might work in the dresdenverse.  I didn't even see it coming until I was in the middle of it.

I'm not saying debating is a bad thing. I'm saying that it's not always welcome or useful, especially in a thread about how someone felt something didn't make sense.

If it was *just me*, I'd say the heck with it. I'm learning to catch the signs of debaters earlier nowadays, but they are often harmful to forums.  They scare away newbies.  They torment anyone less eloquent than they.  And they seem to be more about claiming their ground than in discussing ideas.

Everyone has a bit of debator in them.  It's the same part of you that ends up screaming "I AM NOT YELLING!" at your SO proceeded by "AND YOU KIDS GO TO BED!" at the younguns.

[DragonFire]

I just don't want the risk of getting sucked into a debate on every post I make.

No one can make you "debate" (by your definition, certainly not mine) anything.  It is your choice to make if you allow yourself to be engaged in debate. 

No, but when certain users seem to take delight in responding to every post with which they disagree with posts that can be classified as debating, it tends to drive others away.

Yes, I could simply ignore it and not let myself get caught up, but sometimes it sneaks up on people.  A certain thread, for example, where one person posted their thoughts on a topic, and a debater jumped in to respond.  The OP tried to defend his statements because he just wanted to express himself.  He didn't realize that he was getting dragged into a debate.

The same bloody thing happened to me in a topic about how some aspect of magic might work in the dresdenverse.  I didn't even see it coming until I was in the middle of it.

I'm not saying debating is a bad thing. I'm saying that it's not always welcome or useful, especially in a thread about how someone felt something didn't make sense.

If it was *just me*, I'd say the heck with it. I'm learning to catch the signs of debaters earlier nowadays, but they are often harmful to forums.  They scare away newbies.  They torment anyone less eloquent than they.  And they seem to be more about claiming their ground than in discussing ideas.

Everyone has a bit of debator in them.  It's the same part of you that ends up screaming "I AM NOT YELLING!" at your SO proceeded by "AND YOU KIDS GO TO BED!" at the younguns.

bobtheskull.
I am not some bboard predator, lurking to snare unsuspecting 'discussion holders' into debates with my nefarious posting power.
I am simply a Jim fan who loves the books, and loves to explore ideas.
Yes, I used the word debate. But what I was doing was exploring your idea.
THere were several flaws in them, and I pointed them out.
You have grabbed several phrases I used, and tried to make them evidence of me being some big bully.
As others said, you did not get 'tricked' or 'dragged' into a debate. YOu chose to debate me.
YOu also chose to stop.
THis thread is not about us. I used it as an example becuase it was the easiest. I am not rehashing that little debacle with you, because I don't want this thread shut down, or to be banned.
SInce you've started posting on here, you've taken shots at me every chance you get.
I reported the thread to Iago, because your responses kept getting more and more heated, and in your last post, you neglected the topic entirely, to have a shot at me.
I felt moderator influence was needed.
That spawned this thread, where you do it again.
If anyone is sorry they posted, bobtheskull, it's me.

As to your other post above, telling me my own motivations. Mate, you have no idea what I was doing.
I'll tell you one more time. I found your idea intriguing, but I could see holes in it. I didn't really agree with it, so I took up the devils advocate position.

You made your own choices, take ownership of that, dont' try to blame me.

[Kali]

Ok, I've read enough of this discussion to have an opinion on it, which I submit herewith.  Ahem.

This is an idea without merit.

It's not wise to fraction up your readers because some people get their feelings hurt very easily by written exchanges.  We have rules in place to deal with discussions that get heated; the thread gets reported, an admin looks it over, and he makes a judgement call based on what's there about whether or not the board's "play nice" policy is being violated.  If it is, then appropriate smacks are handed out.

Bob:  In a real debate, no one uses the word "idiot" either.  Debates do not equal people flinging invective.  It's not about "discussion = gentle, debate = mean".  That seems to be your position from what I'm reading, but it's unsupported.  Based on what you've said here, what you mean is that you want a thread where you can post opinions and not have people disagree with you unless they're exceedingly polite and gentle about it.

If votes matter on this, I say no.  If anyone gets overly nasty in a thread, report them.  But trying to handle the previously-stated problem of, "You got your debate in my discussion!" will stifle the open flow of ideas as we, every single time, begin to wrangle over the difference between a discussion and a debate, and not the subject at hand.

Had I seen the thread in question, if someone had called Bob an idiot, I'd have said something in the thread about it and would have hit the "Report" button. 

All that's needed to keep disagreements civil is to remember to examine the argument, not the arguer.  Point out the flaws in the thinking, not in the thinker.  If you really think you can't do it, never use the word "you" in a disagreement post.  Stick with, "This idea", or "that theory".  That'll keep you on safe ground, if you know you're the kind of person who's eventually gonna get disgusted and say "You're an idiot". 

And if someone's arguing against your point, remember that you are not your arguments.  Don't take it personally.  Maybe if it's your PhD dissertation and someone attacks every point, then you can be insulted.  But this is not even a place to debate your intellectual property.  It's Jim's books and the show based on them that we're talking about.  So why be so invested in your opinion that you take any disagreement as a personal affront?

There.  That's my position on this debate.

[fairyfreak]

Hummus....the crazy man's queso.  I like queso... 

Hmmm...is that a debate or a discussion?  (Actually, for the record, I think hummus is fine too  )

I agree with a previous poster that this topic is a concern that the nerdfury over in TV land threads has created.  I also agree that the nerdfury will die down eventually.   

To me, there is no problem either with debate or discussion, it's all in the tone.  And that can be the hardest thing to monitor, because the written word lends itself to be misinterpreted without facial expressions or voice inflections.  What one person thinks is a riviting debate on a topic, might be seen as an attack by someone else.  This is the trickiest part of internet chatting, trying to create the appropriate tone in your posts to convey what you're trying to say.  That's one reason smileys are so important.   

See, there is a world of difference between:

Man, you're one crazy fool!

and

Man, you're one crazy fool!   

So, I guess my advice is to not try and separate discussion and debate (because no one will ever agree on what they mean...which is a debate, right?), but instead, to use more goofy smiley faces.   

[iago]

Here's an attempt at some constructive feedback for two of the posters on this thread who are starting to derail this thread from its more generalized topic by making it specifically about them.  Since that's what's happening, guess what, you'll get me to get specific.

Lightsabre: You have a tendency to use debate tactics which are unpleasant to the other folks in the conversation with you.  Probably the biggest problem I can point at is that you tend to be dismissive.  You'll say "You're wrong." or "Irrelevant!" -- and at best, you'll hint at your possessing of secret knowledge that supports such a dismissal, without sharing it, without citing your sources, leaving you in a position where people can either agree with your stance on faith, or disagree but in a fashion that's guaranteed to make emotions darker, angrier, and heightened, both on their side and yours.  At my most charitable, I can see this as lazy.  At my least charitable, this looks like trolling.  When it's kept up as a consistent pattern of behavior, I get less charitable.  So keep in mind that this tactic (among several others which I'm not getting into) that you casually and regularly employ is guaranteed to put you on a trajectory to where not only the average reader gets annoyed with you, but the admins such as myself start seeing your chosen methods as poisonous to the community and in violation of the "keep it civil" atmosphere we want to promote around here. 

Bobtheskull: You probably started out in the right, or at least relatively blameless, in a lot of the discussions around here, but you're starting to become what you have beheld.  You're letting yourself get baited, you're getting pulled into exactly the sort of discussions you say you don't enjoy and are trying to avoid, and when you do, you're starting to be a less than pleasant participant in them.  As with Lightsabre I do not mean this to say that you can't disagree with people, but the methods and modes of speech being used are starting to fall outside of the "civil, non-derogatory, non-inflammatory, constructive" envelope.  I must encourage you to think twice before you post.  I've seen you let Lightsabre get your goat several times, and it's only reflected poorly upon you.  And then I see you start taking cheap shots at the writers of the TV show -- to their face.  This tells me you're getting stressed out by the boards, and letting that stress color your posts.  Not a good idea, friend.

Whether either of you take these observations to heart and start enacting immediate change is entirely on you, but I will say that I've privately been keeping the admins in general from taking this whole thing as cause to start handing out warnings on both sides of the rivalry.  That wellspring of charity is starting to run dry.

Both of you are walking a line here.  It's the line that divides this board between being a welcoming environment and being a hostile environment. 

You can imagine which one I will act to promote, and which one I will kill in its crib if needs be.

[bobtheskull]

Bob:  In a real debate, no one uses the word "idiot" either.  Debates do not equal people flinging invective.  It's not about "discussion = gentle, debate = mean".  That seems to be your position from what I'm reading, but it's unsupported.  Based on what you've said here, what you mean is that you want a thread where you can post opinions and not have people disagree with you unless they're exceedingly polite and gentle about it.

I said "if someone feels the urge to use the word Idiot", not "if someone uses the word".

There's a difference.  In a real debate, quite often people want to use disparagement.  Usually they try to avoid being the first person to do it though.

Debate is by it's very nature argumentative.  Discussion isn't.

[iago]

This is an idea without merit.

You're on to something there.

My main purpose in starting this thread is to see if there *is* merit to be found, vis a vis my "welcoming" vs. "hostile" goals already stated elsewhere in this thread.

If it turns out there isn't, or there isn't enough consensus about how to distinguish the two, it's not something I can move on.

But it certainly needs to be discussed.  Or is that debated?

[bobtheskull]

Bobtheskull: You probably started out in the right, or at least relatively blameless, in a lot of the discussions around here, but you're starting to become what you have beheld.  You're letting yourself get baited, you're getting pulled into exactly the sort of discussions you say you don't enjoy and are trying to avoid, and when you do, you're starting to be a less than pleasant participant in them.  As with Lightsabre I do not mean this to say that you can't disagree with people, but the methods and modes of speech being used are starting to fall outside of the "civil, non-derogatory, non-inflammatory, constructive" envelope.  I must encourage you to think twice before you post.  I've seen you let Lightsabre get your goat several times, and it's only reflected poorly upon you.  And then I see you start taking cheap shots at the writers of the TV show -- to their face.  This tells me you're getting stressed out by the boards, and letting that stress color your posts.  Not a good idea, friend.

Fair enough.  I know I can be baited and tricked into debate.  Unfortunately, it's one thing to recognize one's weaknesses and another to overcome them.

Regarding the other topic with Mr. Wolfe, you closed the subthread.  I feel a bit damned if I do and damned if I don't here. I'm not supposed to talk about it but you can admonish me here for it.  You've just stated something about the argument I disagree with but I can't defend myself.

Is that really fair?

[iago]

Is that really fair?

Frankly, it doesn't have to be. But I don't think it isn't fair.  I do think I said it shouldn't be pursued as a thread-derailing thing out in public, which is why I said any continuation should be done in PM.

[DragonFire]

Lightsabre: You have a tendency to use debate tactics which are unpleasant to the other folks in the conversation with you.  Probably the biggest problem I can point at is that you tend to be dismissive.  You'll say "You're wrong." or "Irrelevant!" -- and at best, you'll hint at your possessing of secret knowledge that supports such a dismissal, without sharing it, without citing your sources, leaving you in a position where people can either agree with your stance on faith, or disagree but in a fashion that's guaranteed to make emotions darker, angrier, and heightened, both on their side and yours.  At my most charitable, I can see this as lazy.  At my least charitable, this looks like trolling.  When it's kept up as a consistent pattern of behavior, I get less charitable.  So keep in mind that this tactic (among several others which I'm not getting into) that you casually and regularly employ is guaranteed to put you on a trajectory to where not only the average reader gets annoyed with you, but the admins such as myself start seeing your chosen methods as poisonous to the community and in violation of the "keep it civil" atmosphere we want to promote around here. 

Iago,
Let me just say, I hear you. I've noticed this trend in my self, and I like to think I've already made an effort to overcome it, but I'll be more careful in future.
I'm not here to troll or make trouble, I'm just here to talk about the books.
I can promise you I won't make any more posts on the bobtheskull/containment circle issue.

On this topic, however, I agree with Kail.

[DragonFire]

This is an idea without merit.

You're on to something there.

My main purpose in starting this thread is to see if there *is* merit to be found, vis a vis my "welcoming" vs. "hostile" goals already stated elsewhere in this thread.

If it turns out there isn't, or there isn't enough consensus about how to distinguish the two, it's not something I can move on.

But it certainly needs to be discussed.  Or is that debated?

I think the main problem we'd have, as a board, is that everyone would have a different definitions of discussion and debate.
I think we'd end up with, at best, a LOT of similiar threads, one for debating, one for discussion, and at worst, a lot of flaming and complaints to the mods about debaters in hte discussion threads.

[Kali]

This is an idea without merit.

You're on to something there.

My main purpose in starting this thread is to see if there *is* merit to be found, vis a vis my "welcoming" vs. "hostile" goals already stated elsewhere in this thread.

If it turns out there isn't, or there isn't enough consensus about how to distinguish the two, it's not something I can move on.

But it certainly needs to be discussed.  Or is that debated?

Well as the man said, [1776]"In all my years, I've never seen, heard, nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about.  Hell yes, I'm for debatin' anything.  Massachusetts says yea!"

Now give me my rum. [/1776]

[bobtheskull]

Now give me my rum. [/1776]

Granted, but the 1776 rum went bad about 150 years ago, so you're left with a dusty crate of bottles of  ethanol.

Oh wait, this isn't the "corrupt a wish" thread, is it?