SHOULD WE BE DOING MORE DEBATING OR MORE DISCUSSION. Please improve my definitions and add to any advantages and disadvantages
DEBATE. A motion for reaching a decision by voting is proposed by a neutral chair.Two opposing pairs of lead speakers introduce their particular sides of the arguments in turn. The same pairs sum up at the end just before the vote. Separate debating points are aired by the lead speakers. The audience is then permitted to support the side of their choice or criticize the other side. Finally a vote is taken to declare the ”winner” Sometimes a vote on the motion is taken before the speeches as well as after and the percentage change in vote is used as a measure of success. Used ion formal e.p parliament situations or in schools and civic projects or campaigns Disadvantages The techniques invites people to take sides and strives for a simultaneous boost for the winner and put down for the loser. Each principle speaker has scant chance to learn the point of view of the other side whilst concentrating on his/her own point winning. Audience members take sides sometimes according to the personality, lifestyle, age etc of the principle speaker and not making a conclusion on the facts alone.
DISCUSSION. Although there is mostly a theme chosen and an initial idea is tested discussions have no formal patterns. There is greater opportunity for anyone to contribute at any time although bigger groupings make this difficult. The participants have to keep awake and therefor learn all the way through as the discussion could take any turn. The trick is try to control the drift of the argument so winning by dominating the final stages. No vote is taken Disadvantages Often people try to speak when other people have not finished their point. It needs the control of a strong chair who actually needs to keep ahead of the discussion. They must concentrate on everyone being civil. Strong people can dominate a discussion by filibustering - talking nonsense to make allotted time run out.
Which has the better learning outcome?
FOR ONLINE DEBATING goto
I really have no idea, guess thats why I can only listen and try to learn. Sure enjoy your post.
Try this from Jennifer Hancock (Humanist).
[humanistlearning.com]
How to Win Arguments Without Arguing
We humans rarely agree. We argue and debate and nothing ever seems to be resolved. Wouldn’t it be nice if you could cut through the clutter and create consensus for your ideas and proposals? Of course it would. But to get there, you have to stop arguing and start asking questions.
Cost: $15
Length: 1 hours long
Format: self study
Access information: Course access granted upon payment.
@Mcflewster thanks for the suggestion. But no. Just don't care about debateing, barely about discussions. Thanks anyway.
@HankSherman I think you have much more to give. Give it time.
Debates are almost always for the win. Discussions allow the other party to discover the truth for themselves. Check out Street epistomology on YouTube.
Try Socratic method for discussing.
For Info of some others Socratic method. The Socratic method, also known as maieutics, method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions.
@Mcflewster appreciate your explainations....helpful
Even arguing is at least communicating. Just slinging crap at someone in a vain attempt to bolster your side is ignorant, stupid, and a colossal waste of time. We, you and I, pay these ass holes Rs, Ds, and Is to represent us and reach some kind of consensus (one definition-agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole) not to just take our money and see who can piss further up the wall. Maybe with more women in Congress something will change. I hope so. The good-old-buy network stopped working a long time ago. TERM LIMITS FOR ALL !
For some pairings in some situations an argument can be so damaging that its benefits by way of agreed outcome may be snuffed out by hurt feelings and just not retained to a lasting benefit. I do not think that opposing politicians should be paid to reach a consensus, rather than reach a truth which is the best answer for everyone- that requires compromise. Agree about electing more women.
Some people do not know how to debate or discuss but just want their point to be heard, like gospel.
Too true.