Welcome to Gaia! ::

It's not debating that is shallow, it is often the people/person that is debating. Often times a person would rather act like a child than admit that an oponent has a valid point, one that can't be countered with logic. I'm willing to admit that I often am headstrong in a debate, but normally that only occurs when I am arguing for something that I truly believe in and I want changed (i.e. Homosexual rights or leasening the amount of busy work given to students). Some people can't properly respond to a debate and attack their opponents in a futile attempt to validate themselves. However what these people fail to realize is that this more than often backfires, though it does occassionally work.

The people that most class as professional debaters are just disguising their personal attacks behind logic that's totally off topic, which sways the mind of the third parties when it shouldn't. This works for subjects that aren't of any great importance, but for example, when it's a matter of someone's life in a trial, if you can get a good enough lawyer and convince the jury of something that you want through poking flaws in the others statement and letting the jury miss the points at hand. They're making the decisions for the wrong reasons.

By saying that the people in the debate I gave as an example were bad debaters is just doing exactly what I've made this thread about. Mind you the people who they brought into the debate weren't random people off the street, they went straight to the sources and brought them there to debate. They're good debaters, but debating isn't all it's cracked up to be. That's what I'm saying.

I want the general population to be able to get their priorities right.

I know when I'm being headstrong because afterwords I'll sit and shake. I'm still a child-well sort of. 15 is considered a child right?

But there's a difference between debate, say, between politicians, and debate the game/art form. The sad fact is, the large majority of people are easily swayed by flawed arguments, so people who are arguing a point need to do so in a way that is effective. In those types of circumstances (your lawyer example was a good one, for one), it's still anything but pointless: words hold power, pen is mightier than the sword and all that. That's what I like to think of as propaganda debate: you're barely actually interacting with your opponent at all, the purpose is to put on a show for whatever audience you happen to be performing to. And it works.

Propaganda debate is not pointless, but is a bit sad and hollow... Whereas intellectual debate is IMHO, much, much cooler. In a situation where you're called on to defend a position regardless of what you believe, where it is considered bad form rather than effective tactics when you spend your entire time lambasting your opponents... Well, that's what I would consider to be real debate. It could be argued that arguing for the sake of arguing is pointless, (although I'd argue that point) it is actually very good in terms of learning public speaking and logic (if you don't go for formal logic, - the math is beautiful, but only if you like math) and you really learn to see as many facets of an issue as possible - you have to, in order to set up a good argument.

Okay, done gushing now. Sorry.

Seriously, though, my feeling is that debate is completely useless, but serves two almost completely contradictory purposes depending on the context, which can make the whole form look shallow and pointless when taken out of context.

Taking this back to your television example - you spoke of "a popular subject of debate". Generally, this implies something with vested interests of all sides, and generally an issue in which emotions are pretty high, certainly for the people most involved in the issue. So this is an example of propaganda debate, and what's more, since (I assume - correct me if I'm wrong, please!) these people were not politicians, nor had any actual debate training, most of their personal attacks were quite likely not actually attempts to win the argument so much as straightforward "I don't LIKE you", personal attacks. Which has little to do with debate as a form (either type), and much more to do with high emotions and the fact that people who are deep in a particular side can't really see clearly.

(Sorry if that was kind of ramble-y. I do that. wink )

I'll have to take your word for it about being headstrong. When I said child, I meant literally a child, not a teenager.

What I worry about is that someone might be oblivious to the fact that they're being shallow, and the majority of others mightn't realize it either. Because of this, it'd probably not be considered as being shallow since majority rules, when clearly to a few, it is. There's repercussions though.

What you're doing right now sounds like debating.

To me a good debate is a comarison of logical points. The attempt is to find the fallacies within another's logic. From these fallacies one may find ways to show how the rest breaks down.

It's just an active comparison and contrasting of viewpoints. If people make personal attacks and stray from the logic than I would think them bad at what they do. Being "proffesional" or chosen has nothign to do with my opinion of skill or ability.

I'm wondering what the point here is. If you don't like bad debate happenign then GREAT! Debate itself is not bad simply because a few people do it wrong.