presonorek
Gold Member
Is it POSSIBLE to have a debate without generalizing and name calling?
Just wondering!
Yes. It is very possible to surrender the debate and let the losing debater win by choosing the allowed tactics.
In debates you usually use the tactics that works whether the opponent approves or not. Debate is war. If you can convince multitudes to think your way by using generalizations and name calling then you should.
The problem with that bit of thinking is that it assumes debate is just a game, where one side wins and one side loses.
I suspect few people are actually interested in a meaningful discussion they actually share their ideas honestly, without arguing with each other, as if there are points to win.
If debate is neither honest nor fair, what is the point of it? As for your last line, that's the thinking of a politician, and a lot of people hate politicians because time and again they're shameless liars who manipulate the stupid masses.
That is how a democracy functions. You lie and manipulate people into voting for you. The alternative is telling the truth, letting the people make their own decision and losing the election. See the 2008 presidential debates. McCain basically gave us a letter of reference for Obama. You may think there is no point in winning but I say there is no point in losing. The winners get to write history and create the future. The losers get to watch in disgust. I'd much rather win. Losing sounds pointless and painful.