Specifically in the enlightenment sense with the opposite side>does it ever once change the other sides opinion on things"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it.">does it ever change a third party's opinion on things"Don't argue with fools. People from a distance can't tell who is who.">do you actually learn more?no. 1 hour debating a pig or a fool does not give you the same knowledge as the text you are studying from.So what the fuck were the enlightenment people going on about? Seems more like mocking from a distance leads to more intellectual growth than le debate me bro.
you won't know if you're debating a "pig" until the debate is over or you waste however many hours not noticing you're in mud. no excuse to not try though. Who knows, you might learn something new or useful.
>>18698112>Who knows, you might learn something new or useful.I only debate people who are significantly dumber than me, sorry.
>>18698087Schopenhauer was right about debate. You must become the pig.
>>18698087>What is the actual point of debate?Public debate is useful for destroying the reputation of con men.
>>18698087>What is the actual point of debate?brainlet im not even going to read your thread. you fucking argumentative narcissistic imbeciles are the downfall of man
Debating is a waste of time, change my mind.
>>18698348In the realm of ideology and politics what works is power. And ultimately that boils down to physical force. Debate works in fields like math and physics.
>>18698359What about history and humanities?
>>18698359Yes let's debate that 2+2 equals 22.>>18698087Same point as sportsDebates 9 times out of 10 have ZERO intellectual value.
>>18698087People who don't debate online often don't know how to justify their positions.
>>18698589>debate onlinelmao what a pussy
>>18698577There's debate about approaches to stuff. Maybe you'd call it discussion instead. Eventually it's tested against proof/experiment, which ultimately reigns as the supreme arbiter of truth.
>>18698589It's literally 100% this.
>>18698087Public debates only make sense if there is an audience to sway and you are very charismatic. Usually not the best arguments win, but the best oratory skills.All serious arguments about matters of debate among peers should be done in writing instead. That way arguments can actually be well thought out and the conversation is documented.
>>18698087The assumeption would be that prospective opponents were not all Pigs and Fools. You simply had to be selective and sparing with your time.But I'm pretty sure the first quote is of uncertain attribution and the second one is a Jay-Z lyric.>>18698599Tbh online slapfights (provided you know how to pick your battles) are probably the best medium to go on and try out your aguments on the wild. They aren't debates, though.
>>18698087Yes youre correct its more effective for the whole of society to either bully or exterminate faggots who disagree with you. The mentally ill, by definition, cannot grasp reason
>>18698087I'd argue that the skills you get from debating as useful in everyday life. As browsing 4chan no doubt has taught you, arguing with the dumb and disingenuous is more frustrating than it is fruitful, but thankfully not all people and situations are like this. Formal debates have an audience you can persuade and informal discussions tend to be in good faith so that some common understanding can be reached. Regardless of what situation you find yourself in I think there are a few benefits:1. You get free practice. The difference between having a rough idea of your beliefs in your head and being able to coherently present them in an elegant manner to other people is huge, and the more often you do it the better you'll become at it. 2. Your ideas get challenged. If you exclusively hang out in echo chambers then you'll be completely unprepared for legitimate criticisms of your ideas. People who are fans of extreme political ideologies or alternative economic models (like socialism or communism) are especially guilty of this, because they spend all their time in circlejerks that only talk about utopian versions of their ideas.3. It teaches active listening. This is another really useful skill to have. If you're arguing with someone in good faith then you should make an effort to not just listen to their words but interpret the deeper meaning and wants behind them. Most people aren't trained in oratory or rhetoric so they can be bad at presenting their ideas, especially if it's something that makes them emotionally invested, as arguments often do - if you've been in a relationship then you'll know that arguments over irrelevant shit are often proxies for deeper unresolved issues. Being able to accurately understand what a person truly wants or means even if they can't properly articulate it is an incredibly useful skill to have, whether it's for politics, business or personal relationships.
>>18698087>>does it ever once change the other sides opinion on thingsThat's not the point. The point is to change the minds of the thousands of lurkers that aren't actively participating in the debate. Who cares about your random individual interlocutor
>>18698087Ideally, to discuss, understand, and contrast each others ideals in search of the truth. Realistically, debates are just ego contests to see who has the biggest dick for a dopamine spike.
>>18698087Only enlightened persons debating other enlightened persons can lead to further enlightenment. Wisdom is only profitable to the wise, since only the wise listen to advice.
>>18698087The only problem with debate is that the averages persons ideological beliefs are a toilet paper boat with the only foundations being the water underneath itIt gives you a very good idea how people think and its revolting
