Turn on thread page Beta

Agree to disagree? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    At what point in a debate is it most respectful to agree to disagree? Do you wait till you make all of your points, or do you just make a few? Do you stop when you have to start repeating points? What is your opinion?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It would seem that a lot of people (here) keep going until they have the final word and "won", and so if neither parties are willing to concede then the debate could go on forever. But the whole point of debating is to argue opposing points, I think a debate is lost when one starts attacking the messenger and not the message.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I think its when it comes down to personal belief rather than something which could be backed up by stats or testimony. A perfect example of this would be our differing takes on Genesis, something which can't be backed up by facts, figures, or testimony.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hihihihi)
    It would seem that a lot of people (here) keep going until they have the final word and "won", and so if neither parties are willing to concede then the debate could go on forever. But the whole point of debating is to argue opposing points, I think a debate is lost when one starts attacking the messenger and not the message.
    THE debate is the loser, otherwise i quite agree.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Moncal)
    At what point in a debate is it most respectful to agree to disagree?
    When you're losing!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    When it becomes clear the debate is in danger of descending into a rant because the opposing side will not counter your arguments with evidence, fact and rationale.

    (also when it reaches 3am and you start falling asleep)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    When it becomes clear the debate is in danger of descending into a rant because the opposing side will not counter your arguments with evidence, fact and rationale.
    Not just rants but also when the debate is all evidence, fact and rationale on one side but irrational dogma on the other.

    If someone counters reasoned debate with a riposte such as, 'Happy are those who believe without seeing,' then it's probably best to agree to disagree, since it is difficult to debate with someone intelligently on grounds of blind faith.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    If someone counters reasoned debate with a riposte such as, 'Happy are those who believe without seeing,' then it's probably best to agree to disagree, since it is difficult to debate with someone intelligently on grounds of blind faith.
    Thats a real loaded statement. I appreciate that Eggy whatever and Wiwarin's pro religion arguments were rubbish, but you completely failed to address mine. Blind faith is dumb, but rational faith: thats a completely different animal.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I think there is only one correct opinion. If people disagree, one is wrong either because they know the consequence of the other person's view will disadvantage them, or they have a prejudice that fails to see the best view on the whole of society.

    eg.

    someone might disagree with tuition fees because they'll have to pay them
    someone might disagree with aboirtion because they've had a bad experience in the past

    these are things that can lead to prejudices and lead to incorrect opinions.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mik1a)
    I think there is only one correct opinion. If people disagree, one is wrong either because they know the consequence of the other person's view will disadvantage them, or they have a prejudice that fails to see the best view on the whole of society.

    eg.

    someone might disagree with tuition fees because they'll have to pay them
    someone might disagree with aboirtion because they've had a bad experience in the past

    these are things that can lead to prejudices and lead to incorrect opinions.
    Interesting considering your prejudice towards religion because of your experiences of it. I think your opinions on the subject are less than informed due to your prejudices.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by carldaman)
    Interesting considering your prejudice towards religion because of your experiences of it. I think your opinions on the subject are less than informed due to your prejudices.
    Why would I have prejudices towards religion, when I'm an atheist.
    And could you give a example of me being prejudiced?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mik1a)
    Why would I have prejudices towards religion, when I'm an atheist.
    And could you give a example of me being prejudiced?
    That's like saying, "why would I have prejudices toward black people when I'm a racist"? :confused:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    No, more like saying "Why would I have prejudices against racism, when I'm black?"

    There is nothing to say that an atheist cannot be objective in an argument.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mik1a)
    No, more like saying "Why would I have prejudices against racism, when I'm black?"

    There is nothing to say that an atheist cannot be objective in an argument.
    I don't quite follow but I'll take your word for it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's already been said, but generally a debate is lost when the two sides are having two different debates. Often one is trying to argue with facts, and the other is trying to argue with opinions, and neither side finds it very satisfying. Or a debate is taken over by a single person, often going on a rant, and everyone else gets drowned out. Also, I find once a debate decends into semantics, it becomes deeply dull.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think there is only one correct opinion
    This is a dangerous opinion to take. Why should there be only one answer to everything when all people are different? It is particuly dangerous because a belief that there is one answer can lead people (though not necessarily yourself mik1a) to believe that the one answer is THEIR one answer. This gives rise to totalitarianism, blind following of a belief and an end to politics and liberty.

    Also if, using an example already given, someone has to pay tuition fees, that doesn't mean that their arguments are prejudised. The fact that they have experienced them could be argued to give them an insight to the true impact of a policy, descision or view.

    In answer to the actural question, I think it is important that all arguments are given before one tries to reach a conclusion. There may not be an answer to everything, but unless we stay open minded, read and seek to understand other people's arguments, then the discussion will have significantly less impact.

    As a final word, if we are truly openminded, I should expect we have all had are mind changed at least slightly by participating on this forum.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Minor_Deity)
    This is a dangerous opinion to take. Why should there be only one answer to everything when all people are different? It is particuly dangerous because a belief that there is one answer can lead people (though not necessarily yourself mik1a) to believe that the one answer is THEIR one answer. This gives rise to totalitarianism, blind following of a belief and an end to politics and liberty.

    Also if, using an example already given, someone has to pay tuition fees, that doesn't mean that their arguments are prejudised. The fact that they have experienced them could be argued to give them an insight to the true impact of a policy, descision or view.

    In answer to the actural question, I think it is important that all arguments are given before one tries to reach a conclusion. There may not be an answer to everything, but unless we stay open minded, read and seek to understand other people's arguments, then the discussion will have significantly less impact.
    I did say as a disclaimer that although there I think there is one true viewpoint, not everyone will share it exactly because people are different. They have had different experiences and are in different situations.

    Eg. you want to tax the rich more because you are poor. you win the lottery and change your opinion - an understandable decision. Because your situation has changed, has your true opinion changed, or are you just letting your selfish urge to maximise profit control you? Of course, the latter, because it pays to do so.

    Eg.(2). you are for making prison sentences shorter, until you get robbed at gunpoint. This leaves you very angry and you quickly decide that prison sentences should be much longer. Because of an experience, has your true opinion changed? maybe it has, but if it has, it's only because of a prejudice that people you are debating with may not have (as they may not have had your unplesant experience).

    From this I conclude that any disagreements in a debate are due to different experiences and different situations, because we are all different people.

    I don't think you should ever agree to disagree, because one is always right, and one wrong (or perhaps both wrong).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It is reasonable to agree to disagree when you and the person you disagree with have made their opinions and their reasons for holding them clear and know that you cannot persuade the other person. The problem on an open debate like this is that other people are looking in, so debaters want to persuade everyone else of the truth of their opinions too, which means that they have an interest in continuing to say the same things they have already said.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    quit when you or the other person start ranting
    laways say i have found a truth not i have found THE truth
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.