Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stepurhan
Since we are, in fact, talking about opinions on both sides here, I must contest this statement. It seems written from the assumption that your opinion is the only valid one. Admittedly, most of those posting have come out against Musenik (myself included) but that only means we BELIEVE Musenik's opinion to be wrong. To start with an assumption you're going to tell someone "why they are wrong" shows poor debating technique and a lack of respect. If you want someone to come round to your way of thinking you must persuade them. Telling them they are wrong will just entrench them in their opinions.
In fact, I find Musenik's general principle (that calling one social group inherently superior to another is a bad thing) to be sound. I just feel it is misplaced in the context that it was raised.
|
Oh no, I was just reminding that freedom of speech goes both ways, precisely encouraging debate instead of what you read from it.
Although I do think you have the goals of debate a bit wrong. It would hardly be possible without telling "why they are wrong", although you have to be diplomatic about. Convincing people is rarely possible, debate usually helps more with establishing your own views. Note the "why", but I can't fathom how debate would be possible without disagreement.
