What should we debate?

[LaughingMan]

@Simms

@Carleas

Alright, I challenge you to a debate in which I defend the proposition that devil’s advocate debates are reasonable and good, and you argue that they make no sense or you’re somehow above them.

Sounds like a good debate to me. I vote for this one.

@LaughingMan

I don’t mind debating Carleas if it is done by conventional method.

Carleas’ challenge is a conventional debate and this is something you have a strong view on.

I don’t go debating the opposite side of my views.

I will debate my views against others. That’s how conventional debates work.

[Simms]

@LaughingMan

I don’t go debating the opposite side of my views.

I will debate my views against others. That’s how conventional debates work.

In his/her statement he/she is not asking you to debate opposite views.
He is challenging you with the following debate:
Carleas’ Position: Defend the proposition that devil’s advocate debates are reasonable and good.
LaughmingMan’s Position: Defend the proposition that devil’s advocate debates make no sense or you’re somehow above them.

Definition: a devil’s advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further.

So he/she is challenging you to debate a position you actually agree with (not the opposite).
That is he/she believes debating the opposite is good and you believe debating the opposite is bad.

I say, let the debate begin.

[LaughingMan]

@Simms

@LaughingMan

I don’t go debating the opposite side of my views.

I will debate my views against others. That’s how conventional debates work.

In his/her statement he/she is not asking you to debate opposite views.
He is challenging you with the following debate:
Carleas’ Position: Defend the proposition that devil’s advocate debates are reasonable and good.
LaughmingMan’s Position: Defend the proposition that devil’s advocate debates make no sense or you’re somehow above them.

Definition: a devil’s advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further.

So he/she is challenging you to debate a position you actually agree with (not the opposite).
That is he/she believes debating the opposite is good and you believe debating the opposite is bad.

I say, let the debate begin.

I say let’s actually have a debate worth debating.

[Simms]

@LaughingMan

@Simms

@LaughingMan

I don’t go debating the opposite side of my views.

I will debate my views against others. That’s how conventional debates work.

In his/her statement he/she is not asking you to debate opposite views.
He is challenging you with the following debate:
Carleas’ Position: Defend the proposition that devil’s advocate debates are reasonable and good.
LaughmingMan’s Position: Defend the proposition that devil’s advocate debates make no sense or you’re somehow above them.

Definition: a devil’s advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further.

So he/she is challenging you to debate a position you actually agree with (not the opposite).
That is he/she believes debating the opposite is good and you believe debating the opposite is bad.

I say, let the debate begin.

I say let’s actually have a debate worth debating.

[quantum]

So, you had one already here in this thread.
That’s what debate is all about , telling people what you are and never want to change.

Discussion is different- It lets you change or develop up a way to know much more.

Hope positive reply.
well may be not, cause it is debate section !!!
!!!
NOT an Discussion section.