What's the difference between discussion and debate?

[CarolM]

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?

But you still forgot your wish bobtheskull, which might be because this is the wrong thread, though we could debate/discuss that.

[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?

But you still forgot your wish bobtheskull, which might be because this is the wrong thread, though we could debate/discuss that.

Actually, I specifically *didn't* wish a wish here, because it's not the "corrupt a wish" thread.  I think it's just the "corrupt a thread" thread. 

Great.  Now I'm tempted to make a "corrupt the thread thread" thread where every new post has to corrupt the previous post into a new topic.  Thanks a lot! /sarcasm   

btw, thread thread threaditythreadthread.

[Baelmyrrdn]

As I see it, the difference between "discussion" and "debate" is the same as the difference between "black" magic" and "white"...ie, it lies in the realm of "motive and intent."

In a discussion, your motive is to share your thoughts, insights, and questions with a like minded audience, and your intent is to learn and gain new insights from other people's perspectives.  As online communications go, the process is collaborative. 

In a debate, however, your motive is to present your thoughts, insights, and questions to the same audience, but your intent is to convince them that your perspective is the correct one.  As online communications go, the process is competitive.

Personally, I love a good academic debate...and I know from experience they can be done effectively on a forum such as this one...as long as the "Rules of Engagement" are called out ahead of time; and all parties agree to abide by them.

Rather like a Wizard's Duel, wot?

Edited:  'Cause I can't spell...

[DragonFire]

As I see it, the difference between "discussion" and "debate" is the same as the difference between "black" magic" and "white"...ie, it lies in the realm of "motive and intent."

In a discussion, your motive is to share your thoughts, insights, and questions with a like minded audience, and your intent is to learn and gain new insights from other people's perspectives.  As online communications go, the process is collaborative. 

In a debate, however, your motive is to present your thoughts, insights, and questions to the same audience, but your intent is to convince them that your perspective is the correct one.  As online communications go, the process is competitive.

Personally, I love a good academic debate...and I know from experience they can be done effectively on a forum such as this one...as long as the "Rules of Engagement" are called out ahead of time; and all parties agree to abide by them.

Rather like a Wizard's Duel, wot?

Edited:  'Cause I can't spell...

But where is the line?
I mean, if someone theorises murph should get hte sword, and someone else disagrees and says Thomas, is that disucssion or debate?
How do we make the call of what is discussion and what is debate?

[Baelmyrrdn]

How do you tell the difference between a discussion and a debate...in one word:  rebuttal.

In a discussion, when you disagree with someone you will probably tell them them your opinion, perhaps bolster that position with some "evidence" and then given them a chance to reply.  In a discussion, your "opponent" (for lack of a better word) then has the option to present his (or her) opinon in the matter..citing such evidence as they wish.  After you both have a chance to express your opinion, the discussion phase ends...either with a concensus (or the tacit agreement to "respectfully disagree) on the matter.

In a debate, however, the participants take the "discussion" to the next level, and instead of trying to understand the other person's perspective (and agreeing to disagree), they try to demolish each other's  argument by systematically refuting their "evidence" and thereby calling their interpretation into question. 

Frankly, that's why most debate and forensics competitions are governed by a fairly strict set of rules.   When it's all said and done, a debate *is* a competition, it's easy to get caught up in the "win/lose" trap and start attacking your opponent (instead of his or her argument).

Does that help explain it any?

[DragonFire]

How do you tell the difference between a discussion and a debate...in one word:  rebuttal.

In a discussion, when you disagree with someone you will probably tell them them your opinion, perhaps bolster that position with some "evidence" and then given them a chance to reply.  In a discussion, your "opponent" (for lack of a better word) then has the option to present his (or her) opinon in the matter..citing such evidence as they wish.  After you both have a chance to express your opinion, the discussion phase ends...either with a concensus (or the tacit agreement to "respectfully disagree) on the matter.

In a debate, however, the participants take the "discussion" to the next level, and instead of trying to understand the other person's perspective (and agreeing to disagree), they try to demolish each other's  argument by systematically refuting their "evidence" and thereby calling their interpretation into question. 

Frankly, that's why most debate and forensics competitions are governed by a fairly strict set of rules.   When it's all said and done, a debate *is* a competition, it's easy to get caught up in the "win/lose" trap and start attacking your opponent (instead of his or her argument).

Does that help explain it any?

Yeah, but I guess I still see a discussion as very stilted.
I see X because of Y
I see A because of B
Ok, well nice chat.

whereas  debate is
I think X because of Y
what about A because of B
Well C invalidates A
True, what about A2 that fits with C, Also G demolishes Y
Damn, ok well what about Z because of S

and so on.

It seems that disucssion has very little life to it.

[Baelmyrrdn]

Point well made...a discussion *can* continue beyond the initial exchange of ideas.  The difference between your scenario and mine, however, is that your two hypothetical people are exchanging ideas (i.e. if not this, then what about that)...

...in mine, there's no attempt to exchange ideas.  A debate is not an "open-minded" exchange, (or a meeting of the minds), it's a case of "I have my position", and "you have your position"...and never the twain shall meet.   In a debate there is no compromise...there is only one winner (and one loser)

And yes, this is a discussion...not a debate.  You and I are trying to reach a mutual understanding on the topic (and I very much appreciate your sharing your perspective with me).   

[DragonFire]

Point well made...a discussion *can* continue beyond the initial exchange of ideas.  The difference between your scenario and mine, however, is that your two hypothetical people are exchanging ideas (i.e. if not this, then what about that)...

...in mine, there's no attempt to exchange ideas.  A debate is not an "open-minded" exchange, (or a meeting of the minds), it's a case of "I have my position", and "you have your position"...and never the twain shall meet.   In a debate there is no compromise...there is only one winner (and one loser)

And yes, this is a discussion...not a debate.  You and I are trying to reach a mutual understanding on the topic (and I very much appreciate your sharing your perspective with me).  

I guess for me, I see debate as like a science experiment.

IE Magic in the Dresdenverse only comes from life.
Is the theory.

Someone points out a hole, so you amend your theory, or explain how the hole is filled.
For me, if someone disproves your theory, in a debate, you just admit it, and reformulate it.

I know, it's not the text book definiton of debate, but it's how I approach discussion/debate on BBoards.

I also think it should only ever be the idea under attack, tho, never the poster.

[Baelmyrrdn]

Lightsabre:  I very much agree with you.  I come to a forum to learn, to be disagreed with, and perhaps (when warranted) to be agreed with.   For me, the most valuable discussions very much resemble the classic "Thesis, Anti-Thesis, Synthesis" progression.  I don't mind being wrong (that's the only way I learn).

And it goes without saying...in a discussion (or in a debate), you attack the argument, NEVER the person.  As a debate and forensics judge in the past, doing *that* in a debate I judge is a very good way to blitz your score.

[Shiggy]

I just say agree to disagree.  (there was more, and it was cleverly snarky, but my mind went blank when i started to type)

[DragonFire]

So, do we have any answers on this?

[Baelmyrrdn]

So, do we have any answers on this?

No, answers, I'm afraid.  But I will say I think we had a nice exchange of perspectives...

[iago]

I'm gonna hold off on actually implementing anything for this for the time being, I think.  That's the official word for the moment.

[DragonFire]

So, do we have any answers on this?

No, answers, I'm afraid.  But I will say I think we had a nice exchange of perspectives...

I agree. I found your perspective to be very interesting.
I might have to modify my position somewhat to take in some of that.

[Baelmyrrdn]

I agree. I found your perspective to be very interesting.
I might have to modify my position somewhat to take in some of that.

And I, in light of your excellent comments.  Thanks again!