Posted by scotsboyuk
Hello All!
As some of you know I like a spot of debate, but alas I haven't had one in a while so I had an idea; start a thread teaching people how to debate. Now you may be asking yourself why you would want to participate in such a thread, but it could be very useful to you.
The internet is full of forums, which are full of people discussing various issues. You have probably been involved in such a discussion at some point. What I aim to do here is show you how to maximise your involvement in such a debate and get your points across clearly and succinctly.
I will post a statement and you post a reply; I'll take a look and see how you did.
We shall start off with something easy:
Te BBC is good value for money and the license fee is the best way to ensure that it continues to produce quality programming.
Posted by axxxr
scotsboyuk without spoiling your thread can i just say i knew you would eventually miss our little debates!
Back on topic: I think this thread is a good idea...should be interesting.
In reply:
I don't actually think the license fee is good value for money at all,the better quality programmes seem to be on the advertiseing sponsored channels such as ITV and Channel 4.
Posted by marlonski
This will be interesting!
Posted by scotsboyuk
| Quote: |
|
How ironic that you are my first reply.
This should prove to be interesting!
| Quote: |
|
This is actually not too bad a reply; you state your view and give a reason for doing so. This takes care of the first response someone might level at you (and I say this with my tongue very firmly in my cheek), namely that you don't provide any substantial reason why you are saying what you are saying.
What I would suggets is citing an example though. Perhaps you could list a few programmes on the advertising sponsored channels that have been critically acclaimed? If I were responding to you I would probably list various BBC programmes that have won awards or recieved great praise. You could pre-empt this by mentioning them yourself and then pointing to Channel 4/ITV programmes that have also received positive feedback. Pre-empting your opponent in a debate is a good tactic for keeping them off balance.
What you might also do is take a two pronged strategy. As well as focusing on the programmes you could also look at the license fee itself. You could point out that it isn't fair to everyone if they are poor or that some people perhaps don't watch the BBC, but still have to pay the fee. By taking this approach you would be opening up a new line of debate, which can bog your opponent down, especially if you know more about it than he/she does.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-08-22 00:12 ]
Posted by fatreg
hold up...
the license fee is well worth it..
advert free radio is what the world needs... i dont need ads to tell me what shampoo i need to buy.. granted there are ceratin programs on other channels i enjoy watching but i do not watch adverts..
adverts are what makes the people of today what possession driven people they are. i for one have fallen ill to this medium, as wish others not to follow in line..
companies should develop through mord of mouth and suggestions. take for exampe the pizza chain "pizza express" they dont believe in advertising yet they have 280 restaurants in the UK.. i think that speaks voulmes for them.. i just wish other companies would do the same..
take heed you multi national companies. i dont buy your products becuase David Beckham or Davina McCall "approves" them, i buy products that are reccommended to me by people i trust and funnily enough i don't trust you multinational companies as far as i can throw you in relation to your "recommendations" so please quit with the ads and let word of mouth do the advertising then we will see who the big boys are.
fatreg
Posted by scotsboyuk
| Quote: |
|
A good start; you state your view nice and early and very clearly.
| Quote: |
|
Be careful to check facts though; there already are advert free radio stations although you could say this was a general point you were making.
The mention of adverts being bothersome is a nice touch; it highlights one of the advatages of the BBC.
| Quote: |
|
You are skirting on a philosophical argument here, which is a good way of drawing a debate into an area that can't really be proven or disproven. I would save this for when a debate is becoming difficult because it can be a useful method to bring a debate to a point where you can't really loose (or win).
| Quote: |
|
You are going on a little too much with the advertising line here. Until someone picks up on it save your ammo; you may need it later.
| Quote: |
|
This isn't too good an ending actually because you criticise multi-national corporations selling products; this really isn't central to the debate. Furthermore it may indicate to your opponent that you are of a particular political persuasion, which he/she can then use to say that your political bias is informing your judgement and leading you to an incorrect conclusion.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-08-22 00:20 ]
Posted by axxxr
That was actually very helpfull,and you made some very good points, i should have been more specific in regards to why i think ITV and Channel 4 provide better quality programming compared with the BBC and also how the license fee maybe acceptable to some like fatreg
and not the rest of us. :
Posted by Sammy_boy
This is probably subjective, but I think the licence fee is good value for money, the BBC produce much more interesting and unique programmes than ITV - looks at all the programmes on there that have the word 'celebraty' in or are 'reality' TV shows.
Great idea for a thread Scots, my debating skills are probably pretty bad!
Posted by scotsboyuk
| Quote: |
|
This is a good opening because you make your view known, but at the same time you also make yourself appear objective by saying it is subjective. This is a good way to wrongfoot an opponent because it is then harder to claim tat you are acting out of bias.
You highlight a strength of the BBC and a weakness of ITV (in your opinion), but again I would say that providing more specific examples would be a good idea. For example, you could point out that most successful comedies of the past ten years have been on the BBC, whereas ITV has had a host of celebrity themed programmes that have been somewhat similar in character and that don't necessarily offer a great deal of choice.
Posted by scotsboyuk
You all seem to have done not too badly with the first point for debate, so let's move to something a little harder.
There is no absolute right or wrong.
Also, let's look at what to do when someone becomes personal (again my tongue in my cheek). If someone makes a personal comment in the course of a debate, what would your response be?
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-08-22 00:30 ]
Posted by Sammy_boy
So a better way of putting it:
"The BBC's licence fee is good value for money as they have produced some excellent comedies like Only Fools And Horses, Red Dwarf, and successful 'alternative' comedies like The Office as they are not subject to the commercial pressures that a station funded by advertisements are. Those stations can only realistically produce programmes that are almost guaranteed success like the reality and celeb - based programmes and tried and tested formulae."
Though I suspect that could be undone by arguing that Channel 4 have produced some successful programmes whilst still being under the same market forces as ITV.
Edit:
| Quote: |
|
I'd point out that by making personal comments that person has shown they have lost the argument, it is the last resort for someone who has run out of salient points.
_________________
"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke
My Ebay Auctions Faulty bits, binoculars!
[ This Message was edited by: Sammy_boy on 2006-08-22 00:33 ]
Posted by scotsboyuk
| Quote: |
|
This is an excellent point for the BBC. You could have mentioned Blackadder, which didn't do too well in its first season, but was commissioned again anyway.
| Quote: |
|
You could point out that Channel 4 does recieve some public funding. Researching your subject matter can throw up some very nice gems that you can throw in. Research really is the debater's best friend.
| Quote: |
|
That's a perfectly good answer, but not always effective, espeially if your opponent is making salient points. Never get into a personal name calling session with someone who makes personal comments, they may be trying to draw you out in the hope that you will make an even worse comment, whereby they can then take the high ground.
The best strategy is to simply ignore the comments, don't even acknowledge them. Simply keep presenting your points in a calm manner and it effectively denied your opponent the use of the personal insult.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-08-22 00:40 ]
Posted by Alec
I don't believe that the license fee is at all justified. We pay what is quite a substancial amount of money annually for television, and are subject to prosecution if we refuse to pay it, even if we do not watch the BBC. Advert-funded channels such as ITV and Channel 4 consistently produce programs of far better entertainment, as shown by their viewing ratings. [Insert viewing figures for Big Brother (Channel 4's main show) in comparison to Eastenders (BBC's "main show"].
Posted by scotsboyuk
| Quote: |
|
This is really good stuff; people are giving their view right away and very clearly.
| Quote: |
|
This is super; you really go straight for one of the biggest issues surrounding the license fee and in a very simple and straightforward manner. You don't leave your opponent much room for a retort by adding in personal grievances, etc.
| Quote: |
|
This is another well made point. I know you didn't actually include the figures, but if this were a real debate and you had this would be a good way to really illustrate your point. It also means that your opponent has to dispute your figures.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-08-22 00:44 ]
Posted by Alec
Yeah, I'd have added in the figures if:
a) They were easier to find...
b) I had the patience
In retaliation, I'd probably say that vieiwing figures aren't the be all and end all. Just because a program has higher viewing figures does not mean that it's of the greater entertainment.
_________________
For Sale:
D600
Check the A-Z of Trusted Traders
[ This Message was edited by: Alec on 2006-08-22 00:48 ]
Posted by scotsboyuk
@Alec
Patience, along with research, is probably the single biggest ally a debater has. As some may tell you, I simply keep posting until the other person gives up.
I was also trained as a historian, so I am accustomed to spending hours poring through material looking for relevant information.
I would like to move us onto a 'juicier' topic if I may. I know politics and religion are not permitted to be discussed on Esato, but since we aren't actually debating those issues I think we might be allowed to include such a topic. If not then the moderators can delete the relevant posts.
Intelligent design should be taught in a science class.
I am going to give a response to your replies on this one to see how you do when there is a rebuttal.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-08-22 00:51 ]
Posted by Sammy_boy
'Scuse the brevity of my reply, on my XDA!
My reply:
'But not everyone wants to watch the same thing. There is a much wider variety of good quality programming that appeals to all kinds of people on the BBC, e.g. Timewatch docs, different genres of comedy, historical dramas like Rome and not just what is popular or guaranteed ratings winners'
Posted by Alec
Intelligent design should not be taught in science classes. Science by definition means "knowledge - especially that gained through experience". Children's minds should not be filled with "possible explanations" and taught it in a class which primarily explains how the world works. What will happen then is future generations will grow up with un-prooven theories about how the world came to be, it's nothing short of brainwashing.
Posted by scotsboyuk
@Sam
That's good stuff. You have singled out a line of argument that plays well with your view and you are sticking to it. It may sometimes feel like you are droning on abou the same thing, but if you can keep pressing a point you know your opponent can't easily dispute then he/she may concede the point to you, which can serve to weaken their overall argument.
Posted by scotsboyuk
| Quote: |
|
Many scientific theories have holes in them or aren't conclusively proven, should they also not be taught? Should only that, which we consider to be absolutely undisputable be taught? Your use of the word 'brainwashing' seems to indicate that you are biased against it, which is hardly the hallmark of a good scientist, who should consider every possibility. If you cannot disprove Intelligent Design then shouldn't it be offered as a possible explantion?
Posted by Sammy_boy
The problem is that neither evolution or intelligent design theories can be either proved or disproved 100% so I suspect that debate can't be resolved as such. Not sure if that can or can't be used in the debate!
Posted by scotsboyuk
| Quote: |
|
But then if one takes that approach one can say that one should teach any theory that is postulated, which can't be disproved. Surely you would agree that one has to draw a line and teach that, which has the best evidence? How are we supposed to educate people if we teach them a theory on an equal footing with a theory that is more scientificaly credible?
Posted by Alec
| Quote: |
|
Many scientific theories do have holes in them, this is true. However, all of these theories have been prooven beyond reasonable doubt and all are accepted by all but a few controversial scientists. The theory of Intelligent Design cannot be prooved anywhere near beyond reasonable doubt and has very shaking framework based on beliefs, not proof. This is not the sort of thing that we should be teaching children in a subject twinned with truth. This is where my claim of brainwashing comes in. Brainwashing occurs when an authority replaces one's fixed beliefs with an entire new set which are not justified, merely the belief's of the authority.
Posted by scotsboyuk
| Quote: |
|
This is a good rubuttal. You identified the most important point and went straight for it; that Intelligent Design is based, at its heart, on a premise of faith and not science. This is hard to argue with, because one can say that one has to believe in some form of diety to accept Intelligent Design, whereas one can believe in a diety or not and still accept evolution.
The rebuttal of the brainwashing point was good, but you didn't really answer the charge that you are biased against Intelligent Design. Whilst you set out what you meant by brainwashing, your opponent could still say that you are simply biased towards his point of view and could claim that you won't even consider it because of that bias.
Posted by Alec
But surely my argument was good enough to mean my judgement isn't biased but backed up?
Posted by scotsboyuk
@Alec
You may think so, but a good opponent will use very trick in the book to make your argument look weak. This is one reason why one should always aim to present one's points in as objective a manner as possible. You may be forwarding a certain argument, but if it looks like you are doing so because you are biased towards your opponent's view then he can simply say that you are acting out of bias.
The language you use is very important. A term like 'brainwashing' has a very negative connotation. It is wise to consider the words you use, sometimes a word that doesn't have quite as negative a connotation, but still has the same menaing can be used.
Having said all that, you did set out your response in a rational manner and you argued from that point of view. You didn't resort to attacking religion itself or picking flaws with someone's personal beliefs.
Posted by gelfen
i'd like a critique on this then:
The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject
Posted by 02
I would certainly love to join this debate.. however I wud like to make a suggestion,
pls make the topic more flexible where people all over the world can understand and knows whats the topic is about. I dont live in UK so i do not know what BBC or ITV4 or what you guys are talking about... lol. Thats why I see only the same 4-5 people replyin and living in that area... hehe..
Peace.
Posted by goldenface
| Quote: |
|
I think this debate sums it up nicely
Posted by JK
This is a good read!
Posted by carkitter
_________________
Happy 5th Birthday Esato!
[ This Message was edited by: carkitter on 2006-08-23 14:28 ]
[ This Message was edited by: carkitter on 2006-08-24 19:09 ]
Posted by siamese plantpot
haha i liked the bold headings there
Posted by Cycovision
A debate on TV licensing, eh? Scotsboy, are you seriously suggesting that the argument I put across in this post doesn't resolve the situation once and for all
Posted by gelfen
| Quote: |
|
i think i'll take this one if nobody minds:
the flaw in your argument here is that you have stated that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, but is instead a theory based on religion or faith. therefore, by your own argument Intelligent Design should not be taught in science class because it is not science, but rather should be part of an RE or philosophy class because it requires unprovable tenets of Creationist ideology.
in order to have place in a science class, ID must be subject to the scientific method, viz:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment.
It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory. When one speaks of holes in a scientific theory it is not that there is anything wrong with the theory per se, but that our understanding of the phenomenon is incomplete. Simply because there may be one or two minor examples which appear on the surface to conflict with evolution does not invalidate evolution as a theory. It merely shows our understanding of evolutionary mechanisms is flawed or incomplete - or more likely, that the lay-person's understanding is far from comprehensive.
Posted by SE Rules
I personally despise the idea of the TV license. At tehn end of the day, I'm being forced to pay a fee to *watch* Tv channels, eg BBC, that I don't usually watch. In all honesty, I only watch BBC1 to see MOTD on a saturday night and thats it. Bu when the Premiership was on ITV, I watched that. I personally feel that companies such as ITV, Channel 4 etc with advertising can make just as good programs, if not better than the BBC. So why should I pay for the BBC?
Secxondly, with most people using digital services, and come 2011 when its all digital and 90% of the population will be paying monthly subscriptions, why then should people still be charged? It just bugs me, £131.50 per year for somthing I don't use is just wrong!
/RANT
Cheers
Posted by *Jojo*
Hey Scotsupoy . . . what the NEXT 'topic' for debate
How about - SEX?
Posted by carkitter
| Quote: |
|
My understanding of this thread was that Scotsboy UK would critique the arguments. We're not asked to debate each other.
In your post you offer no constructive criticism, no comment on style or effectiveness of argument, etc, etc.
Please reread the first few posts.
________________
Happy 5th Birthday Esato!
[ This Message was edited by: carkitter on 2006-08-24 07:41 ]
Posted by gelfen
excuse me for breathing!
if you read my first sentence you will see that i was offering a critique of your argument - that your own argument provided sufficient amunition for an opponent to defeat your point because you effectively conceded it. i then went on to exploit that weakness by offering my own counter-argument citing accepted scientific practice. perhaps i could have been more clear on what i was doing (i.e. that i was offering a potential counter-argument, one of many).
if i was to go further, i could add that your points linking ID to faith, religion and christianity are points that a majority of ID advocates go miles to avoid since they run counter to the argument that ID is a valid scientific theory.
_________________
Whomsoever you see in distress, recognize in him a fellow man
Gelfen's special place where nobody talks to him anymore
[ This Message was edited by: gelfen on 2006-08-24 10:03 ]
Posted by carkitter
Sorry I bothered to post. Post duly deleted - see above
Posted by gelfen
relax max. it was just a simple misunderstanding. no need to overreact.
Posted by *Jojo*
Scots . . . next TOPIC to debate on . . . pelase
