Debating is not sissy smacking lip service.

A debate occurs when two or more people meet to exchange ideas and to use persuasion to get the other person(s) to see their point of view or better...to change sides. A good debate should not include emotions, but facts. Browbeating is what you describe, and has a tendency to shut off all logical thought. When the two or more sides can't get the other to "move" then its time to quit. Arguing the point is just useless. Now, in a presidential debate, or a graded debate, the object is to persuade the other person, but to sway the judges (or the people listening). Unfortunately, most people who listen to the debates use their own emotion and not any available facts. They also throw in their own prejudices so before the debate begins, the winner was already picked. That goes on in both sides of the isles. Its only the 20% of those listening that really makes a point. The media calls these people undecided, and generally they aren't smoke screened. During the presidential debates in 1994, I remember getting a few people together to watch the debates. Two were solid republicans, and three were solid democrats. I asked each to watch and LISTEN to the debates while concentrating on facts and articulated solutions that made common sense. Surprisingly, the outcome was overwhelmingly for Perot. Although he lost out on the general appeal and speaking ability. I watched the debate you mentioned, and thought both were flat, but Bush had something to add, while Kerry lost any and all momentum. Sure, he spoke well, but it appeared to be speaking in complete circles. Although bumbling, Bush did get directly to the point more often then not. I felt neither had a plan for anything that made sense. But I don't think your topic was meant to be about politics but more on the art of debate. To call it debate or another name, Americans have almost lost that skill, mostly because of political correctness. They are too afraid of talking issues that may cause someone discomfort. Even if that discussion is logical. Even in institutions of higher learning, this process is frowned upon unless it conforms to some "silent" rule. Note: I'm not referring to the "left" because I've experienced both. When I graduated from high school and went off to make it in the world, I would travel two hours to visit my girl friend who was going to college. Normally on Friday, she was still in class, so I'd wait in the lobby or day room of her dorm. Her room mate would come down and chat. Well, her political views were opposed to mine, but our morals and upbringings were very similar. Well, as in any decent academic setting (not necessarily college), we'd discuss something on the news...Reagan was in the office, so debate was ripe. We'd debate the subject for five or six hours before we'd realize that our diatribe was attended by no less the 10-15 people. Sure, we were both passionate about the techniques used to obtain the end result, but the debate opened both of our eyes to new ideas, new concepts, and occasionally a change of perspective. The best part about it was we never attacked each other personally, nor did we through undue emotion into the mix. Sometimes, we'd both play devils advocate in mid debate...that threw others for a loop. I think we did this ritualistic dance for four months straight and some of the students actually saved our spots in the room! Since then, I haven't found too many people that would debate an issue to this extreme. Normally, once the topic starts touching some new taboo aspect, either emotion or silence takes over. My general rule is not to repeat the same thought more then once unless I fundamentally change the tone, or meaning. Then I may play devils advocate to see if I can't pick apart the other's argument. Sometimes though, when I do that, I pick apart my own argument. But, the debate isn't graded now is it?

I think the word debate is a nice way of saying, lets disagree respectively. It is a total shame people cannot do that. I understand what you mean by some of the posts on here. It is b/c of the tone of those posts and the fact that I will never devote time to a one sided position, that I do not participate in discussions that are one sided or have only one position. A good argument will have both pros and cons of the position that is put forth, not just the cons - how stupid of some people. I will never be convinced by an argument that is all or nothing, it better have different degrees of logic or I want even listen. For example, the pros and cons of: war, border security, increase military spending, flat tax, a state income tax, medical savings plans, etc. etc. etc. The point is, there is more that one side to these issues and others. If a person cannot present both sides, they may as well keep their mouth closed b/c my ears will always be closed to their ignorance and lack of knowledge - which is what it comes down too..... Great posts and I agree you. People can't brow beat someone into accepting their position, not unless the person doing the accepting is a loon incapable of forming their own decisions...

See that is the problem, we all take debating too far, and we should not. What makes us so unique is that we are all different, which means that we will all disagree with one another. I know a lot of people on mylot who want to argue until their face is blue and to those people I will say, "Stop it!" You cannot make anyone agree with you and you cannot force them into doing what they do not want to do. People will be who they are.

well, with a debate there often comes a time to agree to disagree. I do not see why, it must be rude or offensive. A friendly debate is great., While it does keep you on the edge of your seat to see the valid points and opposing views to be brought up it is nice when two mature people with opposing views can have a friendly debate without attakcing each other.

Too many people claim and say too many things about debating. Let's keep it straight and simple. Debate formats vary. From the British Parliamentary Format in World Universities Debate Championships to Asians Parliamentary to Oregon-Oxford Format, these are what we call as scholastic, scholarly and formal debates. These formats have institutionalized rules and standards that transcend geographic and political boundaries. When we talk of presidential debates, these are usually personality-principle-platform based lip service, where politicians say and offer what they think would make audiencies become their voters. Nevertheless, this kind of argumentation, though some would prefer to call it a debate, is about image and projection. Though issues are tackled, credibilities are adjudged, and even platforms are scrutinized, the game boils down to what politicians say and how they say it. On the other end, petty quarrels involving exchange of arguments, and most often, of emotions, should not be considered debates at all. More often than not, the exchange of words contain only tidbit ideas wrapped around feelings and sentiments which are really immaterial in an issue or policy debate. In fact, fallacies abound in this setting, ranging from misericordiam (appeal to mercy) to false analogy to non sequitor (doesn't follow arguments). At the end of the day, debate is an exercise of logic and reasoning. It is an expression of competitive eloquence and rational thinking. It is an avenue to present ideas and politely clash paradigms of differing thought. It is about people taking an open-mind on things and delivering constructive analysis on issues and policies concerning life, humanity and the greater society encompassing.

I agree with your babbling George Bush, oops maybe Im not a great debater but a good realistic argument is what keeps us running. Though the people who go on and on and dont even have real points are just dam right frustrating. Or get stuck on their band wagon and wont come down. I like a real debate that leaves both people slightly changed a well read and organised debate that puts you in the mood for a round with rocky. The dribble is just for lines I think.

Real debate isn't the same as "arguing" in the way we commonly think of the term. It's meant as a venue for presenting "arguments" or positions, based on facts rather than purely on emotion. Emotion plays a part, often, yes. People become very passionate, but the idea is to show factual information backed up by evidence that is not easily refutable. Shouting someone down is not refuting an argument. :o)