I'm noticing people think their points are so obvious that they don't have to explain themselves. A lot of "LOL's" going on, and completely misrepresenting the other persons point via sarcasm and Lol's.
Perhaps less of the sarcasm, and more actual explaining your point, and addressing the other's points.
Quoting point by point usually helps. Only once you feel you've explained your point plenty and addressed the other person's point plenty, should the sarcasm and LOL's start being used.
Is the purpose of any debate really to win? Or is it just a means of trading opinions?
As cancerous as debating culture may appear to be arguably in the act of making a coherent argument and in countering the arguments of others you've already achieved something, intellectually, you've likely gotten a little smarter, more practiced and learned a thing or too. So in that sense, you've already won. Isn't that nice. 🙂
Originally posted by PetrusI know what you're asking, but I'm asking what you expect to get from that, bragging rights?
Well I agree, but in debates there's usually a loser and a winner and someone almost always presents a stronger case for his or her argument. So, how are we supposed to determine those things without conceding or accepting the other's arguments are stronger?