Debates over debates

* Firstly my opinion on this subject states that all debates should be openly diverted (???) and that each oponent should be able to understand each others views , yet can disagree and use facts to state that case. * --> That sounds about right. And when discussing said debate, people should be able to DEBATE over that debate, i.e. discuss whether or not the debate was well thought out, too long or short, comment on the resolution, each debater's performance, etc. Moreover, it's unrealistic that one will always understand their opponent's claims. It's not only about disagreeing over arguments; sometimes opponents debate over the wording or intent of the resolution, the definitions of several words in the resolution, whether or not a specific fallacy or straw man argument has been made, etc. In other words, it is very possible to debate over debates. * Yes you can win a debate by using this but at the same time i dont think people always have to fuse personal qualities to convince someone else. * --> I agree, though this point is irrelevant to the resolution. * In addition to this the point im going to get across is that each oponent should be able to write whatever they want and it shouldnt be all based on getting things technically right. * --> Debaters should try to be as 'right' with their claims as possible. It's not about being able to write whatever you want; it's about making a thorough and convincing argument. Arguing over what facts/points are "right" are essential to debate. * I Think a debate should be purely on the subject and nothing beyond that * --> See my first point for all things that can be debated about regarding a debate. * Following this i dont think debates should always have to be comprehensible...* --> What? If they're incomprehensible, what's the point of debating on this site where people have to read and judge who "won" the debate? Huh? * Each person should be able to establish their opinions mixed in with facts they believe to be true whether its based on scientifical facts or theorys, yet the oponent should be able to understand clearly and not withheld what they believe. * --> For the most part, I think facts are more important than decisions while debating. But anyway. It's unrealistic to assume that one's opponent will always understand one's arguments. I'm not really understanding this point (which is why comprehensibility is important!) so I can't respond to it as accurately as I would like to. Either way, the point I'm trying to make is that it's unlikely to expect there to always be a mutual understanding between opponents during a debate. Thus some type of analysis, cross examination, discussion or even argument should/will be used to determine another's position or point of view. * someone should be able to debate a subject online and let it be open to pros,cons anyone who wants to disagree but they shouldnt be able to ridicule or judge anyone by a statement for the pure facts its immaturity and it shows a lack of understandment of the other ones position regarding the debate * --> Ridiculing is immature, but make no mistake about it - judgments will be made based on another's POV. That's life. A lack of understanding is what sometimes causes a rift between differing opinions; however, sometimes it's more than that. Sometimes it's truly opposite perspectives or priorities, stubbornness to avoid reality/facts, etc. * After all these arguemnts are based online we dont know the person fully to judge someone by spelling or writing techniques. * --> No, all we can judge based on those things is their PERFORMANCE in an online debate. You're using the fact that debates occur online as a reason to keep certain things in mind. I agree. So on that note, keep in mind that judging online debates comes with a different set of criteria than judging in-person debates. Like it or not, grammar, punctuation, spelling and overall cohesiveness is a very popular and valid method of judging or aspect of judging. * Nobody should be able to tell somebody they are wrong (based on opinions ) * --> Well, they can, though it wouldn't be a very good or effective debate. Facts are important! * As for the hypocritical part i dont see how im bieng hypocritical? could you elaborate that , i havent said you were wrong in anything you stated i respect what you said but this is what i think and believe should be blaringly obvious, * --> The hypocrisy is simple: You stated that, ""Nobody can say they are right about something which is completeley based on different beliefs and facts." In other words, you feel that your position in this debate is right based on your OPINION. What's hypocritical is that you said people shouldn't say they are right (or wrong) based on opinions, and yet that's your entire position in this debate... It's your opinion that your position of Con is better than mine as Pro.