Controversial opinions

@bish NOOOOOOOOOOO, MY KITTTYYYYY

@Maria WAT I have to completely disagree. Debates are first and foremost for changing the opinions of the people having them. You enter a debate with the understanding that no matter how contrary your view is to the other person's, there is some level of abstraction on which you agree. The purpose of a debate is to find that level by proposing differing arguments, and then working your way back to concrete ideas comparing the differences of experience/thought on your way down. People not being able to argue to some sort of intersection of their opinions is not inherent to debating, that's just poor argumentation, bad emotional control or a lack of understanding of the topic. I think you a confusing debates with stubborn disagreements.

Lol dude, you live in a world full of fantasies. I don't think you've ever exercised being in a real debate. Though yours sounds ideal, in practice it's never correctly done. What you are talking about it's called 'dialogue'.

@Maria No a dialogue is an umbrella term for verbal interaction between two people. Although I wouldn't call my situation normal or pervasive, I don't live in a fantasy world. The kind of debate I described comes from first establishing the correct social context. This is a good example of my above point though, the reason we disagree is clearly not from either of us having faults in our logic but from different experiences: I have these kinds of discussion on a regular basis and you rarely have them. We have come to different conclusions about what an adequate debate is but agree that debates are meant to express your feelings about something in a civilised way and in opposition to someone else's. Do you see my point?

No, you don't understand what I mean, I'm not even against your definition. Look, first: dialogue isn't just done in between two natural persons. That's shallow. Dialogue is something executed even in between countries. Second: what is going on around here, which was my answer to yaasshat, is that debates work only when you are objectively discussing with information, science based, proven facts, and the rest it's your personal conclusions no one is going to question. What we are having right now is just a normal discussion. What we had back then wasn't even considered a debate, it was just personal experience overcoming what, normally, global news never expose. In addition to what Ed just said. He's right, debates can really get heated up, and in the end the opinion accepted is what the majority of the audience think it's right for them even if it is utterly wrong. Again, what we have here is just a discussion. Debates pretty much work like democracy does.

No, the whole point is that you can compare your personal opinions to other's in order understand better the different perspectives of a situation. It does not have to be based on objective facts, it can be a social thing too, based on mutual understanding.

Well anecdotal evidence can only provide so much in the way of discussion or debate. Especially when someone has limited experience or understanding.