You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
January 18, 2019, 03:26:52 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: [Philosophy] Ego in Debate  (Read 836 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DallasTopic starter

  • Absolute Equality & Compassion Advocate / 'He Who Makes Games' / The 'Twisted Crow'
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2013
  • Location: Houston, TX (United States)
  • Gender: Male
  • "... Put a sock in it, Quill." -Wren
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
[Philosophy] Ego in Debate
« on: February 20, 2018, 01:16:31 PM »
This is a personal perception and it is frequently evolving and developing. It is not declaring law or rule of any form, but rather a philosophy. There are generalizations, as this is not meant to be specialized for any specific subjects in these situations. This is a rough draft, so I am open to suggestion on either it's legibility or the philosophy itself.

Also, if Staff feels like this could serve better in another area of the site... feel free to run it by me and I will likely be happy to go with it.

It is important to discuss any facts that pertain to the issue. The integrity of this information is even more important. Opinions have their place, but it is important to use tangible information to support a position that serves as the base of our opinions.

Propose any solutions to the table believed to be viable. Verify the correlation and validity of what is being presented. Contend with flawed solutions by identifying them, present facts to counter it and explain correlations that come to mind. Avoid snark, sarcasm and demeaning attitudes in general, as it compromises one's own position in the argument on a fundamental level.

When the goal of one's debate is about reaching a solution, then at least a conclusion becomes very possible. Mind you, the goal is not to force the solution... it undermines the purpose of the dialogue. I should also point out that a conclusion is not necessarily a solution, as not all problems are easily solved. Many can be ongoing.

When the goal is to 'win', then the path to conclusion (or solution) may lose momentum. Intelligence is what makes this path possible without taking shortcuts (strawman arguments, corrosive language, etc.). Passion can certainly be an endearing 'driving force' to develop and expand knowledge. However, the moment emotion reigns in logic in these situations, the path in resolving a given issue becomes clouded in prioritizing ego over reason. For me? This just will not do, anymore.

If one knows of relevant data and decides to reserve it in favor of taking shortcuts to 'victory', if one desires to 'win' by undermining the opposition then it begs the question on whether or not the individual truly desires a solution to the issue.

[Might work on this a bit more]
« Last Edit: March 27, 2018, 03:00:05 PM by Dallas »