Idealistically, this is how it should work, but it doesn't.

People remember what came before, and just because you feel it should be a certain way does not mean that it's necessarily productive to carry things out in that way. While you and I - and I am sure, nearly everyone - would relish the situation whereby every discussion started from a tabula rasa, so to speak, society - and its individuals - simply do not work thus.

Previous conduct does influence everything one does. One's behaviour in the past accumulates to form the contextual background that an individual takes with them. Whether or not this is a good or bad thing, it is simply how the world works. One bases one's assessment of the character, validity, and trustworthiness of an individual on the images they have perpetuated through their previous actions.

That is why you are hounded here.

 

Actually that's not why at all but that's another topic for another forum.

What you're talking about is not a discussion. In a discussion, both sides respect each other and both sides at the end of the day can agree to disagree. Nobody is trying to win and everybody seeks only to share ideas, concepts, etc. It's like everybody adding something to a hat that gets passed around and it flows freely, without influence, bias, or self-centeredness. It is almost a living, breathing, thing.

I have seen plenty of examples of it in this very forum, but not for years.

 

But discussions are built around disagreements. If everyone agrees, there is precious little to discuss, surely.

Thus, as disagreements come to a head, a discussion can get heated and remain a discussion - especially if one side feels that his or her opposition is not appreciating some key tenet or other.

Sometimes in discussions, someone is wrong and someone is right. Not so in politics or in religion, perhaps, but in - to take something off the top of my head - fluid dynamics, say, a discussion can be had wherein one person is on an incorrect line of thought and the other is not, and the resolution of the discussion revolves around the convincing of one by the other to come around to an enlightened way of thought.

I have no idea where this post is going.

 

I get what you're saying.

However, a discussion does not get heated. Once it does, it ceases to be a discussion.

A discussion is built around not a disagreement but around the people in the discussion admitting "I don't know" and going from there. There is no opposition in a discussion.

Discussions tend to involve more than one person. Yes, if somebody is having a discussion with another person, then if said person thinks the other is going along an incorrect line of thought, said person can attempt to correct the other, in a polite, respectful manner. The second anybody involved tries to prove him/herself right or anybody wrong, it is no longer a discussion. Two people who both believe they are right cannot have a discussion. Everybody involved has to admit they don't know, otherwise it doesn't work. A discussion has to begin and end with "I don't know", otherwise it's not a discussion. Basically, the idea is not to win or prove anything but for everybody to understand the ideas/concepts/beliefs/opinions everybody else brings into the discussion as best as possible.

 

Ah, well - I think you and XO are pretty much saying the same thing... I think the kind of heated is the issue. Heated imho would be like civilized competition. Not flaming, but really getting into it competitively...

 

View attachment


​

 

View attachment ​

 

There's no competition in a discussion though.

Having participated in many sports discussions/debates, I know what you're talking about though. You're saying something like if one person is presenting their idea/understanding/belief/concept, and another is skeptical or maybe doesn't quite understand it completely and is challenging it, or maybe is it a bit stuck in their ways.

Like, for example, if I were in a sports discussion about the different ways to assemble a basketball team and how to have them play, etc. Let's say I'm saying that an athletic, scrappy team can outplay a bigger, much more talented team, and the other person is saying they don't think it can happen because x, y, and z. If, after we have both made what we're saying as clear as possible, we can't agree to disagree while admitting that either one of us could be right, it is no longer a discussion.

The way you avoid getting heated is by asking questions instead of making assertions when challenging what somebody is saying. That doesn't mean asking loaded questions or using questions to try to "win" anything. It means, in the example above, asking a question like "How could you cancel out the other team's size and superior talent?"

 

Oh, ok... I think I get what you're saying. In a discussion there is no opposition. A debate on the other hand does have opposition hence two or more people presenting arguments to prove their points and win.

I would definitely have to agree... Please correct me if I'm wrong, however, as I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. You know, even in the debate there is no place for flaming and throwing insults. Btw, I'm not saying that you flame and throw insults.

Good point, if I'm understanding this correctly...

 

I lol'd.

 

Exactly

And don't worry about clarifying. I can tell when people are doing things like putting words in my mouth, throwing catty digs, spinning things, etc and when they're clearly not.

 

Respectfully, I disagree. From a dictionary definition, we have:

Discussion –noun
an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., esp. to explore solutions; informal debate.

I think the only defining factors that make a discussion different from an 'argument' [colloquial use] are logic and civility.

A debate, to me, is simply a formal, structured discussion - and they can certainly get heated!

 

Hmm... Ok, I cannot dispute this. I guess something like posting funny photos in a funny photo thread might be considered opposition free. I suppose humour like posting jokes in a joke thread might also be opposition free, but what else would be? I don't know...

I will say that Baller correctly identified that both informal debate(discussion) and formal debate do exist here... I will interject too that there is no place for flaming and insults, but of course - we know people begin to throw insults when they run out logical arguments.

 

There is a huge difference between a discussion and an argument. You could maybe say that there's only a tiny difference between a discussion and a debate but a discussion and an argument?

An argument is two people who cannot civilly disagree with one another and who have thrown any kind of discussion/civil discourse out the window. An argument is personal and goes way past the lines of what a discussion is and is not.

Opposition means you are trying to win something. The only opposition in a discussion comes from closed-minded people who make having a discussion impossible. At the end of the day, if you can't respectfully agree to disagree then you are not having a discussion. Haven't you ever heard of a debate team? A debate between two candidates, etc?

I'd also like to make it clear that I said that they used to exist here. They don't anymore and have not for years. All that exists here are pissing contents and public ego stroking sessions.

We're really kind of going way off a tangent though, as this little discussion started because you said you'd like to talk with me but.. and then stated your opinion of me. So instead of discussing what a discussion is, why not have one that is about an actual topic, idea, etc?

 

When I read the news article it reminded me of Monkey's old assertions that he lived in the hardest place in the world. Then I had the idea of posting it up on the forum with the Monkey reference as a lead-in. But I never actually thought he would reply. Still, for a couple of pages, the thread was hilarious. :awesome:

By the way, Monkey, whenever you feel like answering my question, you know where to find me.

-S-

 

That's exactly what I said.

 

Right but what I'm saying is that in a discussion, those involved have to be able to agree to disagree at the end of the day. In a debate though, it's all about winning. It's about you being right and your opponent(s) being wrong.

That is not at all what a discussion is about.

 

A debate is not just about winning, it's about how you win. It's about being able to coherently and cogently present a sound argument on a single premise/motion, and calmly and completely refute objections to it. A discussion is more free-flowing, whereas a debate hinges around a single issue - the motion.

 

Actually, it's entirely possible to have an argument that is both civil and respectful. In fact, "argument", at least in some senses of the word, is synonymous with "discussion".


argument


–noun

1. an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation: a violent argument.

2. a discussion involving differing points of view; debate: They were deeply involved in an argument about inflation.

3. a process of reasoning; series of reasons: I couldn't follow his argument.

4. a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point: This is a strong argument in favor of her theory.

5. an address or composition intended to convince or persuade; persuasive discourse.

6. subject matter; theme: The central argument of his paper was presented clearly.

7. an abstract or summary of the major points in a work of prose or poetry, or of sections of such a work.

8. Mathematics . a. an independent variable of a function.

b. Also called amplitude. the angle made by a given vector with the reference axis.

c. the angle corresponding to a point representing a given complex number in polar coordinates. Compare principal argument.



9. Computers . a variable in a program, to which a value will be assigned when the program is run: often given in parentheses following a function name and used to calculate the function.

10. Obsolete . a. evidence or proof.

b. a matter of contention.

 

Facts, emotions, differences of opinion

That is basically what I have gathered from baller's post too.
I can see a lot of "discussions" turning into "debates" unless we have a mutual admiration society type set-up; boring if I were asked.
Flaming and ad hominem attacks can be largely ignored, especially when we have become at least somewhat desensitized to them.
There are tactics that some use to frustrate and confuse opponents. For many of us, when we see this we smell troll, maybe someone being deliberately obtuse.
So maybe a `dscussion' is simply dissertation of facts, while a `debate' allows for some emotion relating to a difference of opinion(within agreed limits)?