Hello all,

I have been wanting to ask this question for a while now what exactly is an honest debate? I saw one poster use that phrase and I have wonder what one is since then. I ask because so often I see people discussing a subject but not pointing out problems with either a plan the discussion is about or the logic being used by a person that when examined proves to be flawed and needs to be rethought. Instead what I see are those same folks completely disregarding every attempt to make them aware of those flaws so they can address and correct them. While comlimenting each other on ideas they thinks are good ones or in other words mutually mentally wanking each other off. Which caused me to believe that when people say that they are not actually looking to hear or in case of the net read opinions that differ from their own. Rather they are looking for opinions that agree with their own, which to me means the debate wouldn't really be a debate. Of course, this is all just my own opinion based on the idea that in a debate you will get differring opinions on the matter and examining the logic behind them is an integral part of the debate

I believe it was I who used the honest debate statement when dealing with drugs and their legality. As such, I feel it is my responsibility to explain what I meant by the comment.

In an honest debate, it is recognized that both sides will have strong, logical arguments they use to uphold their own position. In a debate, it is not where you are critical of all other opinions, it is where you have rock-solid arguments which hold up your own arguments. When others poke at your arguments (which is expected), you are able to logically and reasonably explain your own stance without resorting to emotional entreaties, anecdotal evidence, or similar personal observations. It is not about the debater, it is about the topic and having sources completely unrelated to the debater as proof of their argument.

An honest debate is not about one person sharing their personal experience and saying it must apply universally; that would be arrogance. It is not about opinions, because everyone has those and they are irrefutable: you can't argue someone's opinion is wrong. An opinion can never be right or wrong because that is a matter of belief, not facts.

I suppose, putting it into a single sentence, the difference between a discussion and an honest debate is how much the participants 'personalize' matters. If the participants remain impersonal and focused on facts and evidence then the conversation is a debate. If they get personal and lack impartial evidence, the conversation is a discussion which will never have the ability to be concluded.

NJG

@Phicksur,

Thanks, I have heard the term before in the comment section of a youtube video, but what followed was not a debate so I decided to ask to clarify what one would be