When opinions collide

[Ziel]

Here's some food for thought.

Ann, Bob, and Cat, each have beliefs about something. Ann and Bob both have the same belief. Bob considers the belief core to part of who they are, but Ann does not.  Cat's belief is mutually exclusive with that of Ann and Bob. That is, if Cat is correct, the others cannot be.

Consider the following scenarios (in each case, assume all arguments are directed at the statements made and not the individuals):

• Ann makes a statement about the belief, and Cat states that they disagree. Is that necessarily a personal attack against Ann?
• What if Cat shows a flaw which would prove it can't be true. Is it necessarily a personal attack then?
• In the above two scenarios, what if Bob made the statements that Cat was responding to? (remember Bob holds the beliefs as core)
  
• What if Ann makes the statement and Cat proves it's not true. Would that be a personal attack against Bob?
• How about if Cat makes the initial statement about the belief. Since Cat's position would mean that Ann and Bob's belief must be incorrect, would that be a personal attack against them?

As far as this is concerned, none of the things listed are, inherently, attacks on anybody. The tone is what can make it feel like an attack. And even an argument posed in most appropriate tone can start feeling like an attack if it is repeatedly brought up, despite it being obvious that one member isn't going to change their mind. It all goes back to the whole knowing-when-to-stop thing that has already been mentioned a couple of times.

What ends up happening is that when one person says something, and another person shows the first's position to be wrong, all it takes is for the first person to refuse to admit that they are wrong (something else people have major troubles with) and the staff will more often than not side with them.  It's as though the staff sees the person saying "you are wrong" as being an aggressor, and it jumps in to protect the "weaker" side. The problem is, when we are talking about ideas here, the weaker side should fail. The truth does not need defended from honest rational consideration.

I do agree that this sort of thing does have a tendency to happen (everywhere, not just here). But a lot of it is because the one trying to get somebody to admit they are 'wrong' will often come off as much more aggressive than the one being defended.



The big thing I see in regards to all this, is that the 'right/wrong' mentality doesn't really apply to most things worthy of being in a debate forum specifically made for more controversial topics. If there is a clear right and wrong, there would be no controversy, and no debate. This is meant to be a place to throw thoughts and opinions around, and hear what others have to say. Then perhaps discuss any discrepancies there might be.

And that leads into a final point that I wanted to make regarding religion as a topic in general. From the standpoint of a religious person, there's a few things about religion that make it particularly touchy (and not just because it can often be a core part of a person's identity). Many religions require some degree of a 'blind faith'. By following that religion, you are, in a sense, agreeing that you believe the teachings of that religion.

As such, that particular religion's books/history/teachings become what you regard as fact. But if you get into a debate with somebody of a different religion, and thus a different base of such facts, you are both arguing what you see as fact. And either person only has sources associated with their particular religion to back up these 'facts'. But both of them will consider the arguments based on these sources as invalid, because they don't believe the sources from the opposing viewpoint.

So neither party is going to accept the other's arguments, and nobody is going to convince anybody of anything in particular. But this applies mostly to a debate between two different religious viewpoints.

Now, when you start talking science vs. religion, there's a new can of worms opened, but a similar process. I am most familiar with Christianity (my personal belief), and thus I hold the Bible as truth. The Bible has an account of history that clashes in several instances with what is considered scientific truth. Now, an argument over one of these topics will become what science holds to be true versus the Bible. Again, neither party involved is going to accept the source of the other's arguments.

The bottom line here: We should probably just try to keep religion out of debates. Sure, it'll probably come up when people explain why they see certain things certain ways. But when we see that, it's best that we take it for what it is, and not address it directly. Simply stating that you feel differently about it and explaining your reasoning for your own thoughts would be the right way to handle it.


*I don't want this to derail into a discussion of religion itself, I was just trying to explain something I felt relevant to the thread.

[Avan]

The big thing I see in regards to all this, is that the 'right/wrong' mentality doesn't really apply to most things worthy of being in a debate forum specifically made for more controversial topics. If there is a clear right and wrong, there would be no controversy, and no debate. This is meant to be a place to throw thoughts and opinions around, and hear what others have to say. Then perhaps discuss any discrepancies there might be.

What may be self-evident to one person may not be to someone else. And simply being self-evident to one person doesn't actually make it correct or not, they need to be able to back it up.

[Yip]

The big thing I see in regards to all this, is that the 'right/wrong' mentality doesn't really apply to most things worthy of being in a debate forum specifically made for more controversial topics. If there is a clear right and wrong, there would be no controversy, and no debate.

I agree with Avan. But I also wanted to point out that there are times when it is possible to show with logic that something is impossible. And the vast majority of the time, if I'm going to say someone is straight up wrong, that'll be why. And I almost always include my reason for saying they are wrong.

-----------

The point of the list in my last post was to invoke thought into exactly how one defines what is and isn't a personal attack. If a personal attack is defined by whether someone finds it offensive, then this leads to several problems. Some were pointed out by the list, but the biggest problem is simply that it gives all the power to the one being "offended". And people that get "offended" often do so simply because they got challenged on something they can't back up. That is, those that hold unreasonable positions.  So by defining personal attacks based on whether someone finds it offensive, it directly leads to protecting those who are the least reasonable.

In a discussion, if we attack the individuals this usually gets nowhere. But attacking ideas can narrow in on where the flaws are so that a better understanding can be gained. As I've said, an idea needs to stand on it's own merits. Truth needs no protection from honest rational consideration. If a belief is true, challenging it can make it stronger. If a belief is false, challenging it can allow us to see discard the false belief. It's win-win.

For all these reasons, it's important to make a distinction between attacks directed at the individual and attacks directed at the idea.

[Kada-Ru]

Ok, I'm putting an end to this back-and-forth 'debate'.

Vararam, you are not getting the point.  You keep 'pushing' YOUR view points as 'logic' but are not willing to allow others to have their own view points.  Pure and simple.

I didn't finish reading this thread as I got bored with it not getting anywhere except the same o same o spot.

Not everything in this world is based on logic.  People believe the way they do because of how they were raised, their personal experiences, their community views, parental views, or what have you.  They will NEVER be YOUR point of view because those views don't belong to you but to others that see the world different from you.

Just as in this thread, you are unwilling to see things from the other members point of view.  Only from yours because as far as you are concerned only YOUR point of view is correct, no matter what.

If you feel that I or Kobuk have 'attacked' you personally, that is your right.  But remember, every member here has a right to feel the way they do as well.  Even if it doesn't match your views.

So, take my comments as a sign that possibly there is something 'flawed/wrong/what have you' in your statements and dealing with others on this forum.

*edit: after posting my thoughts, I finished reading the thread and I still feel the same way.*

[Avan]

But within the scope of the debate, the whole point of the debate is to figure out which is the valid idea and which ideas are not valid, and use logic to debunk the invalid ideas. Debates are not for those who are afraid of having their ideas challenged, because the entirety of a debate is specifically to challenge ideas, including your own (via other people actively examining them to find potential problems or errors in the logic used to formulate them). Outside of the scope of the debate, participants may choose whether or not they want to accept something.

I've noticed that this thread seems to have two griefs, misinterpreted as one: One about how the points are actually presented, which is specific to Vararam's way of expressing his points, which given their generally direct and to-the-point nature result in people feeling aggressed. While a valid complaint, its not one that can really be helped without people coming to better understand what he means by what he says. And the other is about use of logic. While the first may have been a valid issue, this one is not. The entire art of debate revolves specifically around the use of logic to convey one's ideas in a coherent fashion that would allow for supporting one's own arguments while possibly debunking others. Without the use of valid logic (both in the formulation of conclusions and the selection of relevant premises, as well as the debunking of invalid logic), the entire notion of a debate is folly, as you would be unable to figure out what is valid and what is not, and might as well be completely discarded. The use of logic in a debate is essential to having a real debate. Without logic you will either end up having a bunch of people saying what they believe, with now support of it, and no ability to interact with other ideas to validate or invalidate them, or you get a shouting match.

The spirit of debating is about a pursuit of Justified Knowledge; and while in some cases a debate may be unable to establish a fact by the end, you will at least be able to pull Justified Belief from the conclusions of the debate. If someone can walk into a "debate" and pose a completely ludicrous statement, like "The speed of a waffle is orange gallons per newton", and not have that idea challenged, it is a very poor excuse for a debate and could hardly be considered a debate at all, as in a proper debate, such a statement would immediately be debunked and moved on from.
HOWEVER, it is also important to note that the IDEAS IN THE DEBATE and the IDEAS OF THE PEOPLE are actually separate entities. In a debate, ideas are POSED, which is to say, that they are put into an idea-pool of the debate itself, where they are then dissected and examined and the invalid ones thrown out. At the conclusion of the debate, the results are then available in the form of the debate's conclusion and any logs of the debate itself, if available (Which in this case, being a forum, they are). At this point, it is up to INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE to DECIDE based on the logic used to reach the conclusion of the debate if they want to accept the conclusions of the debate as valid or not, and then adjust their own view accordingly.

The problem is that people here do not know how to debate in that if an idea can already be succinctly shown to be invalid by use of valid logic and correct premises, then it should not be re-posed ad-nauseum, because at this point; one of two actions should be take: a counter-counter-point is introduced to show the debunking logic is actually invalid (Which given the premise I posed in this hypothetical, would not really be a great choice, but in a real situation, where things are less likely to be that exact on the first counter-point delivery, it would be a very valid action to take), or the idea is abandoned as invalid, and then move on to another idea. There is also the third option which is to introduce more information you had forgotten, but as this is technically done in the manner of the first option, it would really fall under that category. It is re-posing the same, unmodified idea without countering any of the counters made originally that is improper debating. That is called (rather confusingly) "arguing", and I don't mean arguing as in the action of posing an argument, I mean the re-posing of the same argument ad-nauseum which is generally attributed to the "shouting match" stereotype of arguments. And while countering these points with the exact same counter-points is technically a valid tactic, it is not a very good one, because you clearly were getting nowhere to begin with, and you should either try to find some other way which might convince them that the idea has been removed from the debate's idea pool as invalid, or to summarily dismiss them from the debate for being disruptive.

Note also that giving the same counter-point to an already dismissed idea (or even altered idea to accommodate the original invalidities shown, which now would require a different counter-point to address) in a debate (ie, those who were backing it decided that yes, the counter-points were valid, and withdrew their support for that idea within the debate pool) makes you look incredibly silly. And its not something that should be done either.

But returning to the original point, which was that of the freedom to choose what you believe in the context of a debate, etc;
Yes, everyone has the ability to choose what they want to believe personally; they can /choose/ to accept the conclusions made within the debate or not. As I said earlier, their personal idea pool is SEPARATE from that of the debate. However, by that same token, the idea pool of the debate is a communal thing, owned by all the participants of that debate as a group, but owned by none as their personal property. By putting your ideas into the debate pool, you intend for their examination and dissemination and for them to be directly challenged. At this point the copy of the idea given to the idea pool of the debate is nolonger yours to protect over; you have no "right" to state that the debate's copy is true, while you can for your own copy, which remains outside of the context of the debate. And then, when the idea is challenged, you have no right to complain that people are attacking YOU, because they are not. None of that was directed at YOU, it was directed at the idea that you provided into the debate - what makes this all the more confusing is the problem that when people talk to each other, they address their statements to that person, which can make it seem that it was directed at said person when it really was not; the delivery of the message was only addressed to that person, say to explain something; not the payload of the message - that was aimed at the idea in the debate's idea pool.

At the conclusion of the debate, its yours to take it or leave it, that is where your right to believe what you want comes into play.
During the debate, you have no protective rights over the ideas you donated to debate's idea pool beyond things such as copyright (ie, people would have to attribute what you say to you, so as to not commit plagiarism, etc.)

[Kobuk]

^ I didn't even bother to read the huge wall of text in the above post.  How's about giving me the "condensed" version?

[Avan]

*headdesk*
It only really works if you read the whole thing. I wrote it all out for a reason. >.> (And it took me nearly an hour to do that.)

But since everyone is just going to skip over it anyways;

TL:DR; Wolf puppies are, without a doubt, superior to anything else in existence.

(More seriously, I can't figure out how to summarize it. There's too much rational that would be left out if I did IMO)

Might as well just give you the opening and closing paragraphs (this is MISSING so much of it though )

======>=>==>

But within the scope of the debate, the whole point of the debate is to figure out which is the valid idea and which ideas are not valid, and use logic to debunk the invalid ideas. Debates are not for those who are afraid of having their ideas challenged, because the entirety of a debate is specifically to challenge ideas, including your own (via other people actively examining them to find potential problems or errors in the logic used to formulate them). Outside of the scope of the debate, participants may choose whether or not they want to accept something.

...
*me illustrating his statements and making links to how its all relevant to Var, other debaters, and debates in general*
...

At the conclusion of the debate, its yours to take it or leave it, that is where your right to believe what you want comes into play.
During the debate, you have no protective rights over the ideas you donated to debate's idea pool beyond things such as copyright (ie, people would have to attribute what you say to you, so as to not commit plagiarism, etc.)

[Sskessa]

Var and Avan are not two alone. Although I don't post in the debate forum often, I generally agree with their point. Avan's post can be summarized thusly:

We are discussing two issues:
1) Sometimes Var uses harsh words and ad hominim attacks
     -Var himself agrees with this; thus, I see no more point in talking about it.

2) A "debate" is a separate entity from the individual debaters. Thus, attacking ideas is not the same as attacking a person who holds those ideas. Like playing Street Fighter. When you punch Chun-Li, it is not the same as thing as punching your buddy who is controlling Chun-Li

[Sskessa]

Why can't you just let other people have their ideas and opinions and let them believe what they want?

I know this question wasn't directed at me, but I think it's one of the most interesting questions in this thread so I will answer it my own way.

Quite simply, I place more value on truth than on an individual's right to be incorrect. I would recon that in many cases, so does everyone here.

For example, say you know a person who believes that people of African decent are less intelligent than people of European decent. Even though you can bring up many studies that show this belief is NOT grounded in reality, this person continues to hold this incorrect belief. A few points:
-I accept that I cannot force a change in that individual's mind.
-HOWEVER I will always debate against this idea whenever I come into contact with it
-Other individuals watching the debate will be able to make their own decision, hopefully based on which side is more grounded in reality
-Incorrect ideas often lead to incorrect actions. Ex: If the person refused to lend library books to Africans because he believed they were not intelligent enough to read.
-I respect the right of this person to say what he believes.
-HOWEVER, I do NOT respect the right of this idea to exist. Ie, if the idea "goes extinct," I would consider it a good thing for humanity.

We have freedoms today that our ancestors couldn't dream of precisely because some hot-heads relentlessly attacked ideas (ideas! not individuals!) that were incorrect.

Hope that gives you some idea where I'm coming from, Kobuk ^_^

[Yip]

Vararam, you are not getting the point.  You keep 'pushing' YOUR view points as 'logic' but are not willing to allow others to have their own view points.  Pure and simple

I have never stopped someone from having their view. As I've said, I can't change what goes on in people's heads, and THAT is where their view lives: in their head. Not in a forum post.

We are discussing two issues:
1) Sometimes Var uses harsh words and ad hominim attacks
     -Var himself agrees with this; thus, I see no more point in talking about it.

I would say "has used" not "sometimes uses", particularly with ad hominims as I specifically try to avoid those. Though I do agree that I often come off as more harsh than I intend. Probably because I tend to be direct and to the point.


I agree with Avan's post, though I expect it may be hard for some to get through. But I'd recommend people try since I think this is an important thing to understand.  The one area I where would disagree is in the use of the term "debate" since some people might take this as formal debate, and it applies much broader than that. Every day discussions have elements of debate, and it applies there as well.

[Alsek]

Or,  it could come down to an interpretation of evidence.

Two people can look at the same piece of evidence and draw two different,  mutually exclusive,  yet logical opinions.  A lot of evidence allows for more than one option.


Var,  it actually took me a while to figure out what you don't mean to come off as harsh as you do.  Being,  "To the point," has nothing to do with it.  I am to the point.  It's often as though you state your interpretation of evidence as absolute truth and portray your opinion as though it is the only one reachable through the use of logic.  In other words,  you seem as though you group your own opinion in with the scientific approach as though you believe any other opinion reached could not have been reached through logic.

That being said,  please note the word,  "Seem,"  above.

I don't think you do this on purpose.  I don't think that's what you believe.  That's just how you come off to me.

It was only once i realized that it seemed as though there was some kind of tension in your post even when we blatantly agreed on a topic that i figured out something was up.  Not a personal attack,  i've come to respect you and your posts,  but that's just what i see happening.



And i'm in agreement  (As everyone else also seems to be,  so i'm not sure why we keep saying it)  that it makes sense to not post in the debate forum if you're going to be crushed by the idea of someone not agreeing with you...  It's just a matter of keeping it civil and allowing for an open mind where evidence is inconclusive (as a lot more evidence seems to be than most people think)

[Yip]

To try to get back to the main point of the thread:

I would like someone who believes that attacking a person's idea would count as a personal attack to please explain to me precisely how one differentiates between a statement that is a personal attack and one that is not. By what criteria do you come to this conclusion?

[furtopia02]

To try to get back to the main point of the thread:

I would like someone who believes that attacking a person's idea would count as a personal attack to please explain to me precisely how one differentiates between a statement that is a personal attack and one that is not. By what criteria do you come to this conclusion?

I'm not on anyone's 'side' in this but something I've observed is that the context is the biggest factor. It is likely not so much what is being said but where. For instance: bringing a religious opinion into the debate forum and someone opposing your viewpoint and presenting evidence that falsifies your opinion isn't a personal attack because it is a place where that is expected. If that person who holds the religious opinion was in a place of worship however, and you walked into their place of worship to argue with them that they are wrong and then present evidence against them then it could (and likely would) be considered a personal attack.  That is a clear example of this concept but it isn't always as obvious. If someone feels very comfortable posting in another area of the forum that isn't the debate forum and is going out of their way to stay away from debate discussions and then someone still persistently "follows" (in a digital sense..) them around the forum to argue with them then they (and others) could see that as a personal attack or form of bullying regardless of who is right or wrong they clearly didn't want that kind of attention. While its easy to say that they "shouldn't be upset" or state how wrong it is of anyone to deny logical thinking, humans have a strong emotional side and emotions should be exercised on both sides in a healthy fashion; namely one of empathy for each other and knowing when to back off. If someone knows they are hurting someone else they shouldn't continue and stir up trouble and ill feelings. Promotion of logical ideas and thinking is a good thing but frankly to deny the emotional side of humans is.. well.. not logical either. Humans are very emotional beings. We aren't computers, and are much more complex.

[Yip]

I'm not on anyone's 'side' in this but something I've observed is that the context is the biggest factor. It is likely not so much what is being said but where.

Since I'm talking about stuff said here on these forums, I don't see how location is relevant. Regardless of where you are in these forums, you are dealing with people with a wide variety of beliefs. So if you put an idea out there, you should not be offended if someone disagrees with it. Especially if they can explain why they disagree. Everyone should have the same right to express their opinions as everyone else, even if that opinion is one of disagreement with something someone else says.  If we are not allowed to disagree and to explain why we disagree, then it completely destroys our ability to have meaningful discussion.

Edited to add:
You says that the context is important. You used location as an example. I've explained how the location example doesn't fit here. Is there something else you meant when you said that context is important?

Promotion of logical ideas and thinking is a good thing but frankly to deny the emotional side of humans is.. well.. not logical either. Humans are very emotional beings. We aren't computers, and are much more complex.

Who said anything about denying the emotional side? Emotions should be taken into account. However, if the goal is to determine the truth of things (and it is*), logic is vastly superior. Emotions are extremely poor at determining truth from falsehoods. There is a reason appeal to emotion is considered a logical fallacy.

*Regardless of what's being discussed, the goal of discussion could broadly be defined as "to increase understanding". For example, if you learn what someone thinks about the movie they watched last night, then you've increased your understanding on that subject.  And a very important part of increasing one's understanding is in determining what is true from what is not.

[Narei Mooncatt]

To try to get back to the main point of the thread:

I would like someone who believes that attacking a person's idea would count as a personal attack to please explain to me precisely how one differentiates between a statement that is a personal attack and one that is not. By what criteria do you come to this conclusion?

I kinda touched on this in my initial post, but let me adress this directly since you asked for input. Simply attacking an idea is rarely a personal attack, if ever, as far as this forum and topic is concerned. But what seems to often happen is you keep attacking someone's idea over and over and over again, refusing to let up when it's pretty obvious they are not about to change. At that point, it does have the effect of being a personal attack. Regardless of your views on a topic, constantly being told "you're wrong" over and over again makes you start to feel inferior as if your ideas don't matter, be they right or wrong. Keep in mind, we're not expert debators here. Often people may have opinions that are quite valid, but it may be that they don't know how to best put them into words that others can understand their point of view properly. Like Brent said, we are emotional creatures. Sure, we can control them to a point when in a debate, but everyone has a limit on how much they will take before they start to lash out and fight back against you as a person if all they get from you is "you're wrong". At that point, people get flustered and upset at you directly. You risk it becoming a flame war. Tempers flare. Topics get locked. Etc. Etc. Etc.

That's why I suggested trying to lighten up. Most people seem to let things go after a while when a point is becoming stale, and then move on to another point of debate. You, on the other hand, don't seem to do that. As long as they try to defend themselves, you keep attacking what you think is the idea and not seeming to care about the person putting up the defense.

[Yip]

But what seems to often happen is you keep attacking someone's idea over and over and over again, refusing to let up when it's pretty obvious they are not about to change.

Why is this considered bad while continuing to repeat the same flawed idea is not?

... but everyone has a limit on how much they will take before they start to lash out and fight back against you as a person if all they get from you is "you're wrong".

But that isn't all they get. They also get reasoning why it's incorrect, but they very often ignore that part, or at least fail to address it. And this is something that bothers me, when I point out where there is a problem with a claim, the other person rarely addresses the problem I'm pointing out.  Heck, it's happened in this thread.

------

The overall message I'm getting from you is that most people don't really care about what is true. Is that a correct assessment?
Also, I'd like to note that while your input is appreciated, you obviously are not one of the people that think that attacking an idea is the same as attacking the individual.

[Narei Mooncatt]

Why is this considered bad while continuing to repeat the same flawed idea is not?

I didn't say it wasn't. But as I've said before, there's going to be times where it's obvious someone isn't going to change and you have to just drop it and leave it up to the other members to decide who's more right. Eventually I think most people will eventually let up even when they're wrong. See my next point.

... but everyone has a limit on how much they will take before they start to lash out and fight back against you as a person if all they get from you is "you're wrong".

But that isn't all they get. They also get reasoning why it's incorrect, but they very often ignore that part, or at least fail to address it. And this is something that bothers me, when I point out where there is a problem with a claim, the other person rarely addresses the problem I'm pointing out.  Heck, it's happened in this thread.

Reasoning or not, it's still the "bully factor", for lack of a better term. At some point, the other person could just get fed up and stop responding to you, or possibly respond with arguements more flawed if they're getting aggitated. It's that emotions factor I mentioned before.

The overall message I'm getting from you is that most people don't really care about what is true. Is that a correct assessment?

I think you're a bit off base. My intended message, as I've said repeatedly, is sometimes it's best to just not get so aggressive about it when someone is wrong. Whats the point, if they are not listening to aguements contrary to their belief?

Here's a rather over the top example that I hope demonstrates my point: Lets say a person stands on a street corner saying the Earth is flat. No matter how much you explain to the contrary. Even if they took a space flight and orbited for a week. For whatever reason, they will not accept the Earth is round. After a while, people are going to no longer bother trying to convince this person that they are wrong. It's not that they don't care that the person is wrong, they just accept that he is and go on about their own business because the person's beliefs isn't going to impact their daily lives.

[Kobuk]

Emotions should be taken into account. However, if the goal is to determine the truth of things (and it is*), logic is vastly superior. Emotions are extremely poor at determining truth from falsehoods. There is a reason appeal to emotion is considered a logical fallacy.

Have you been watching too much Star Trek lately? You sound like a Vulcan. 

[Avan]

Your point being?

I hardly think that said comment contributes to the matter at hand. >.>

[Alsek]

may i point out that you come off the same way in morality based debates which are not really based in scientific fact?

^^

[Avan]

Who, me or var?
Anyways, it is entirely possible to have a logic based morality system (And yes, I know that logic and science are not the same thing (though related), but I think that its the relevant idea you were trying to get). I have one under which I run my own primary level conduct. (Though I must say we're starting to get rather off-topic)

[Yip]

Why is this considered bad while continuing to repeat the same flawed idea is not?

I didn't say it wasn't. But as I've said before...

BUT the current policies would paint the person pointing out why the ideas are flawed as the "bad guy" while the other person repeats the same thing ad nauseum with no punishment. Again, it often tends to protect people that are the least reasonable.

I think you're a bit off base.

Perhaps saying they "don't care" is a bit too strong. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that they don't understand how to critically evaluate an idea. And they certainly undervalue this critical evaluation. It's the fact that they undervalue this critical evaluation that leads me to say they don't seem to care about what's true.

Whats the point, if they are not listening to aguements contrary to their belief?

Because you are not just talking to the one individual.  Do you know what happens when stupid ideas are allowed to exist unchallenged?  They spread.  That and following an idea to it's logical conclusion is (for me) one of the most enjoyable parts of a conversation.

Do you know what happens when stupid ideas are allowed to exist unchallenged?  They spread

Who are YOU to say someone's ideas are stupid?

Since I'm sure some people are thinking that from my last statement, I figured I'd respond to it myself to clarify:  I'm not calling any specific ideas stupid. However, it is undeniable that stupid ideas exist. For example, if someone believes they can levitate and fly if they only have faith, this is a highly delusional idea. In a word, it's stupid. So yes, stupid ideas exist.  And the best way to combat them is to be unafraid to challenge any idea. One does not need to specifically make a judgment call on which ideas are stupid because the stupid ones will not withstand being challenged whereas the other ones will.

[Kada-Ru]

There is a fine line between someone not 'agreeing' with another and one that is being told that what they believe is 'wrong, stupid, irrational, non-logical, etc.'.

One statement comes to mind, "You can't beat a dead horse to death."  That is what I see being done here.

Anyone can 'challenge' my statement, but as far as I am concerned, I will continue to believe in that statement about what is happening in this debate thread no matter how one uses logic to disprove it.  Some times, there just isn't any 'logic' to some debates and the debate just 'is' what it 'is.

that it makes sense to not post in the debate forum if you're going to be crushed by the idea of someone not agreeing with you...  It's just a matter of keeping it civil and allowing for an open mind where evidence is inconclusive (as a lot more evidence seems to be than most people think)

[Yip]

One statement comes to mind, "You can't beat a dead horse to death."  That is what I see being done here.

How so? No one has adequately explained why attacking someone's idea should be treated as attacking the individual, nor has anyone addressed the problems I pointed out which are caused by adopting such a position.

Anyone can 'challenge' my statement, but as far as I am concerned, I will continue to believe in that statement about what is happening in this debate thread no matter how one uses logic to disprove it. 

Do you realize you just said that you are unreasonable with regards to this issue? Is that really what you meant to say?

[Narei Mooncatt]

I think my point has been demonstrated quite well now. I think we've at least attempted to address your concerns but you're not satisfied and we're starting to repeat ourselves. Regardless of why your issue isn't resolved (be it us not able, or unwilling to adequately address your concerns), it isn't happening and maybe we should put this topic to rest.