4 ms·

>It reminds me of the web site "The Motley Fool" that would post an article such as "Should you buy AAPL?" that would always hem and haw and come to no real con

>It reminds me of the web site "The Motley Fool" that would post an article such as "Should you buy AAPL?" that would always hem and haw and come to no real conclusion. Perhaps the reader felt they were being diligent by considering so much contradictory information. Yeah I also hate it when articles give me the arguments for and against some issue and let me come to my own conclusions instead of just telling me what I should think. /s

PaulHoule 5y ago
See https://depts.washington.edu/fammed/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/3d-HANDOUT.pdf https://depts.washington.edu/fammed/wp-content/uploads/2018/... there is such a thing as reviewing the information about a topic, but then there is a "debate" which is a pernicious game people play in high school (e.g. arguing for and against positions that they don't believe in just to have an argument.) When adults have a "debate" usually the goal is to take an absurd position like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision or the idea that God is an old man who sits on a throne and created the world in six days and legitimize it by comparing it to a real scientific or theological theory.
- timr 5y ago
  That document is incredibly ironic, if you know anything about actual debate. The common move of the experienced debater is to re-define terms to confuse the issue, then boldly advance a claim based on those bizarro-world definitions. That's exactly what is happening here...but, hilariously, being used to disparage debate. Someone defines "debate" to mean a bunch of things that aren't actually true, then proceeds to make a document where the tenet is that there's something "better" than debate. > Debate assumes that there is a right answer and that someone has it This isn't true at all. It's a socratic game to gain a better understanding of the truth. > Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in one’s beliefs. Any good debater can take either side of an issue with equal facility. > Debate defends one’s own positions as the best solution and excludes other solutions. Not a requirement of a debate. A good debater, in fact, often expands the playing field to win the debate. > Debate defends assumptions as truth No, and in fact, if you do this in a debate and are caught, you lose the debate.
- vanattab 5y ago
  >When adults have a "debate" usually the goal is to take an absurd position Not so. Most debates are about mundane things like, Should we invest our limited RD budget on X or Y?, or should we send our kids to public or private school? Or is GoT or LotR a better series. That table you linked is total nonsense trying to redefine fussy terms like debate, dialouge, discussion and artificially place them on a linear scale. T Debate is a from of dialouge which is in turn a form of discussion.
themitigating 5y ago
Does everyone read the article or just take the click bait headline? What if the article emphasizes certain information while downplaying the rest. If you make your own decision based on false, misleading, or partial information then it's only partially your decision because you've been manipulated.

PaulHoule 5y ago

See https://depts.washington.edu/fammed/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/3d-HANDOUT.pdf https://depts.washington.edu/fammed/wp-content/uploads/2018/... there is such a thing as reviewing the information about a topic, but then there is a "debate" which is a pernicious game people play in high school (e.g. arguing for and against positions that they don't believe in just to have an argument.) When adults have a "debate" usually the goal is to take an absurd position like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision or the idea that God is an old man who sits on a throne and created the world in six days and legitimize it by comparing it to a real scientific or theological theory.

timr 5y ago
That document is incredibly ironic, if you know anything about actual debate. The common move of the experienced debater is to re-define terms to confuse the issue, then boldly advance a claim based on those bizarro-world definitions. That's exactly what is happening here...but, hilariously, being used to disparage debate. Someone defines "debate" to mean a bunch of things that aren't actually true, then proceeds to make a document where the tenet is that there's something "better" than debate. > Debate assumes that there is a right answer and that someone has it This isn't true at all. It's a socratic game to gain a better understanding of the truth. > Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in one’s beliefs. Any good debater can take either side of an issue with equal facility. > Debate defends one’s own positions as the best solution and excludes other solutions. Not a requirement of a debate. A good debater, in fact, often expands the playing field to win the debate. > Debate defends assumptions as truth No, and in fact, if you do this in a debate and are caught, you lose the debate.
vanattab 5y ago
>When adults have a "debate" usually the goal is to take an absurd position Not so. Most debates are about mundane things like, Should we invest our limited RD budget on X or Y?, or should we send our kids to public or private school? Or is GoT or LotR a better series. That table you linked is total nonsense trying to redefine fussy terms like debate, dialouge, discussion and artificially place them on a linear scale. T Debate is a from of dialouge which is in turn a form of discussion.

themitigating 5y ago

Does everyone read the article or just take the click bait headline? What if the article emphasizes certain information while downplaying the rest. If you make your own decision based on false, misleading, or partial information then it's only partially your decision because you've been manipulated.