The Art of Debate

Something I've noticed for quite some time now is that people seem to have forgotten how to debate. I'm not talking about these forums because, for the most part, people around here know how to debate properly. Sure, sometimes debates will get heated, but for the most part, most people here present their side with facts and logic. It's honestly the main reason I enjoy these forums so much; people here are generally well educated, mature, and articulate very well on how to present what they're saying.

However, if we look outside this site, especially when it comes to controversial news, we see a different kind of debating a lot. That would be people debating on their emotions and assumptions.

For example, I'm sure some of you have at least heard of the controversial incident that happened here in the US with a young man named Michael Brown and a police officer. If you haven't, long story short, the officer shot and killed Brown and people are split on whether or not the officer was justified. The problem is, too many people that I've seen pick their side or choose to debate not with facts and logic, but their emotions and assumptions. Either Brown probably deserved it because he looked like a "thug" and that earlier that night, he robbed a convenience store. On the other side, you'll see people claiming racism because the officer was Caucasian and the victim was African American and that the officer was in the wrong.

This was only an example, and believe me, despite how tragic it is that a young man lost his life, whether it was a justifiable homicide or not, the media has drowned Americans with this story when there are people tragically dying, not only in the rest of the country, but the rest of the world.

The big issue I'm having is that too many people let their emotions and assumptions get in the way of the facts of anything. I find it hard to have a discussion with friends on anything such as politics or incidents like this because they let their emotions tie in with it, and while I believe emotions have a place in certain situations, I believe facts and logic are the most important parts of most discussions with more than one side.

I think the main reason I made this thread was mostly to rant, and while I could have just made a blog about it, I really want to know what you all think since, like I said before, most of you all tend to actually know how to debate. I want to have a discussion about debating and how to properly do it.

I mean, does anyone else notice this? How do you handle being in a discussion like this, if you do at all? Do you think I'm wrong? If so, how do you think a debate should function?

And also, please don't make this thread about the example I used. It's a hot topic right now, but I'd rather not have a discussion about it here.

I haven't payed much attention to the Ferguson news, but I'd disagree with you on saying this is an assumption. While I don't think someone should be killed for robbing a convenience store, it'd be a very valid point to bring up in a debate. (Unless you're saying people assumed he robbed a convenience store, then I would agree with you).


Anyhow, I agree. A healthy debate can be so beneficial and fun, but it's disappointing when people attack each other instead of the topic.

This is true, with that wording, it could be debated whether he deserved it. What I should have said is that the killing was justified because of the fact he robbed a convenience store earlier, which is, based on fact, untrue.

It wouldn't be an entirely valid point because if you murder someone, there is not a 100% you get killed in retribution. In fact, life sentences can sometimes be worked off with community service. So, to outright kill someone for robbing a convenience store is really extreme. You wouldn't even get that reaction if you robbed a bank.

I'm not sure if the point of this thread is discussing this incident, and I honestly haven't looked it up yet, but over here it's a law that a police officer can only use firearms when someone else uses a firearm. So if this is also the case in the US, and the man who got shot didn't have any firearm (or something that looks like a firearm) on him, then I think we can conclude the act wasn't lawful. Then again, should police officers get fully punished for using a firearm when they weren't supposed to, then one could fear that police officers will hesitate to use a firearm when they do have to, which could end badly.

All in all I think discussions like these are hard to handle properly, especially in (online) communities. As there are so many themes (state, law, racism, apartheid, murder, death, trias politica) which carry so many feelings, opinions, cultural aspects and tons of previous conflicts with them involved, keeping the discussion "civil" and at the same time trying to work towards something like a conclusion seems very hard to me. Which I think is ironic, because I believe that discussions like these should be able to have a positive impact on everyone involved.

These debates usually don't have a "leader" to make sure everyone can have its say (or just stop repeating the same thing over and over) either, so things can get messy fast.

Very interesting topic, I'm interested in what this will turn up.

It's not supposed to be about the example I used. It's supposed to be about how debates seem to be handled a lot in various forms of media, including social media, news media, and even just forums where people discuss topics such as the example I used. I just used that incident as an example because it's a current one, and a pretty much a big story here in the US currently. I wanted the topic to be more about the debate aspect of this and other events and why letting your emotions getting in the way of facts can severely cloud someone's logical judgment, in my opinion.

However, to clarify, in the US, an officer is only allowed to use lethal force if the officer has probable cause to believe his life or other lives are at risk by the perpetrator. If they have a firearm and they refuse to surrender it, it's usually up to discretion. If a perp charges at an officer with a knife, a bat, a metal pipe, etc, that officer has probable cause to believe his or her life is at risk. It's not just limited to the perp using a firearm.

"**** you. Your stupid and wrong. And I'm God, so what I say is right!"

Did I do good ma?

When i look at the thread title, i thought we're talking about organized debate and stuff :3. So, can't help but share this.

I've been in my school's English Debating Society for 3 years. All those years, we've debated and participated in competitions using the Asian Parliamentary format.

Check this out for a guideline on Asian Parliamentary debate


And this.

I wish there's a program that allows for online VOIP AP debates that has a PTT, 2-channel (whisper to team and main debate for POIs and the actual speech) option.

I agree a lot of people IRL use more emotions and assumptioms them logic and fact.

Here in the Netherlands there is currently a huge controversy going on regarding one of the countries main holidays.

"Zwarte piet" is a helper to "sinterklaas" and is by some people seen as a racist character because they say he represents both slavery and black face.
Black people are apperently getting called "piet" in the streets as a racist remark, i imagine it feels to them like being called ******. I will not defend those racists and maybe there should be different colored "pieten" if people get this hurt by it but NOT FOR THE FALLS REASONS THAT THEY CLAIM. People representing foreign countries have said our intire country is racist for celebrating the death of saint nick... Because they think it's bases on slavery.


Here are the facts, "sinterklaas" was celebrated before the dutch started doing slavery. The suit "piet" where's are based on extremely expensive spanish clothing worn by them during the 80 years war between the dutch and spanjards. "Piet" is based on a man saved by saint nick from hell after his flesh was burned... No mather what your skin color is, if you burn it it turns black like a lot of things if you burn them.

These are the facts of the holiday and none of them are used by either of the 2 sides.

People who wanted "zwarte piet" to stay use the argument that he is black because he goes down chimney's... That is what we tell little children who still believe "sint" is real so that we don't have to tell them that "piet" is someone with burned flesh out of hell.

The people against say that his STEAM POWERED BOOT is a slavery ship...

All these assumptions include 0 facts and a ton of emotions to the point where neither side is right and all of them are idiots.

People are effectivly being called ****** because of this so yeah maybe we do need some purple or yellow "pieten" of people are getting hurt
Like that. That is the only argument that side should make and they can win.

The side against should you the before mentioned FACTS and then they could win. But no, both sides are on hormones and hyper emotional making the controversy stupider by the second.

I had read that Zwarte Piet was supposed to be a Moor from Spain who came bearing gifts, and lived with Sinterklaas in his villa in Spain that he spends his off-season time in...