Your example of comparing this argument to the Xbox PS3 debate isn't totally valid as this debate is a matter of opinion for each individual, The God debate is not.
...Wait, I'm sorry...but...what?
We can know about every part of each system, how they operate, look at their game lineups, research the scores of said game lineups, their faults in the past of the system... (security stuff online has had it's problems for some.) We can nitpick every little thing down to the smallest detail, it's all fact...but how does arguing one religion is more right than the other not include some opinion in almost all instances? At least arguing the systems allows for each party to be factually right, even if they are more "wrong" about how the system is better in the end...but discussing the existence of a God is far, far harder to get 100% factual information, especially since it usually stems from differing religions...and let's be honest here, religions that differ so much cannot both be the "correct" religion. (Assuming there is one - I won't argue there is or isn't, that's not going to get anyone anywhere.)
...anyway:
You say the point of a debate is to come to a conclusion that both parties are satisfied with, this is practically impossible in mosts debates as the two parties are unlikely to even shift slightly on their starting opinion. Usually the point of a debate is to convince an audience that your point of view is correct, and your opponents isn't by using evidence and logic. Therefore the 'winner' of the debate is the person who changed more minds.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_writing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/argument?s=t
To debate is to discuss, to show and hear differing opinions. It is also to consider, in other words, to be open to new ideas and opposing arguments. Often, the word debate is used in instances where a group of people are trying to find a solution to a problem, thus me saying to "come to a conclusion."
Persuasive writing is what you do when you are simply trying to persuade someone to see and agree with your viewpoint, which is what you're doing.
An argument kind of varies. It can mean several things, really, it heavily depends on the way the word is used. In this case, I'm referring to the point where an argument is an attempt to persuade.
Yes, you can argue with someone - in other words, attempt to persuade them, and it can still be a debate, but unless you are also open to new ideas and willing to come to a middle point, a solution, it's just classified as persuasive writing, or that definition of argument.
You then go on to talk about learning stuff from a debate, and yes I'd probably agree with you actually here
I will listen to people and maybe change my views when there argument is backed up by strong evidence. HOWEVER when I was debating mrcri he did not offer one factually correct piece of evidence for his view, and he clearly didn't want to listen and learn from what I was saying when he refused to read up on the topic.
Fair enough I guess, if this is the case. I didn't read your whole "argument", I was just trying to make a point.
You finally speak about how you must always stay civil in a debate, and yes I'd agree with you actually here. I KNOW SHOCKER, I think me calling people 'silly' is just a bad symptom of my approach to a debate. However I do still think that it is wrong in a debate to be afraid of telling your true opinion or only revealing a toned down version of it. In a debate I'd want you to be communicating 100% of what your thinking.
Well, this is a more complicated thing. Theoretically, yes, someone could state every little thing on their mind, but the thing is, we're only human, and as such, many things that cross your mind about the subject might be unneeded. I mean, if you tell me you thing I'm some disgusting hobo or something, maybe I won't be offended, and maybe I did want to know how little you thought of me...but it still isn't contributing to the discussion, and in fact encourages it to go off course, as has been seen in this thread. It's only human for the initial thought in someones mind to be "this guy is an idiot" when the reality is that he isn't. I may think a lot of negative thoughts at first, but after logical thinking, it becomes clear I'm not really giving the person a fair chance. (A lot of people seem to judge others by their knowledge in a specific subject. I could be the dumbest person in the world when it comes to any history subject school has ever thrown at me, but I am by no means dumb in everything else just because of that.)
P.S I just reread your comment and saw you should be neutral in debate? THE POINT OF A DEBATE IS TO BE THE OPPOSITE!
I see how you may have been confused by my use of neutral. You're right, in a debate, you generally are in favor of a side, you usually are on a side and argue it's the "better way" or whatever. Maybe I used the word a bit inappropriately.
What I meant was that you would talk as if you neither were really fond of the person, nor had any hatred towards him. In other words, as if he was someone you knew nothing about and had no reason to like or dislike, like some guy walking down the street you saw for only a few seconds. You know nothing about him, and have no reason to judge him, so you're "neutral" towards him.
I apologize if this post is a bit disjointed, I had to attend a few things between paragraphs here, so there were several 5-10 minute intervals of writing spread a half an hour apart. lol.
