Necessity of being wrong

[Excubis]

The philosophy behind debating takes its root from the dialectic process which we get from ancient Greece. Public debates were so this process could be brought out to allow reasoning to be acquired. By looking at both sides of an argument, weighing evidence, and putting aside personal opinions one could gain a relative truth.

Now many today think debating is about winning but this is very very recent in the history of debate. The purpose or philosophy behind debate is to question even your own ideals/meme/moral/views. To truly accept another opinion, if the reasoning is sound. Recently watched this and quite enjoyed. This is the background for this debate please watch before you comment:


Now question for debate.
The point of debate is to analyze evidence or reasons for a view, point, stance, and belief, yet to truly debate one must be inclined to be wrong. Agree or disagree?

Some definitions:

Dialectic process/method: The ability to find relative truth by exchanging logical arguments.

Logical arguments: proportions or statements that can be either true or false, by presenting statements in a debate those proposition can be reasoned and therefor truth can be arrived at. Fallacies will become apparent.

Reasoning: the process of arriving at a conclusion, supported by evidence, can also be why/how judgments, inferences are formed.

I am only adding these because it is important in any debate to understand these. You can search and find these definitions with more extrapolation for yourself.

[Miles]

The philosophy behind debating takes its root from the dialectic process which we

Now question for debate.
The point of debate is to analyze evidence or reasons for a view, point, stance, and belief,

Debates can have several "points," or objectives, so I think it's wrong to suggest there's only one. One of the biggest, and most common, objectives is to best one's opponent. To simply show him you're right and he's wrong---probably more an ego thing than anything else. Analyzing evidence or reasons for a view, point, stance, and belief is merely the mechanics of debate, not the objective. Another objective is to convince others of your position---think of a congressional debate. Yet another is to embarrass one's opponent; make him look bad in the eyes of others.

yet to truly debate one must be inclined to be wrong. Agree or disagree?

"Inclined to be wrong"? I don't think so. Why would one need to be inclined to be wrong?


.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 2 by Miles]

Did you watch the Ted Talks?

[Excubis]

The philosophy behind debating takes its root from the dialectic process which we

Now question for debate.
The point of debate is to analyze evidence or reasons for a view, point, stance, and belief,

Debates can have several "points," or objectives, so I think it's wrong to suggest there's only one. One of the biggest, and most common, objectives is to best one's opponent. To simply show him you're right and he's wrong---probably more an ego thing than anything else. Analyzing evidence or reasons for a view, point, stance, and belief is merely the mechanics of debate, not the objective. Another objective is to convince others of your position---think of a congressional debate. Yet another is to embarrass one's opponent; make him look bad in the eyes of others.

yet to truly debate one must be inclined to be wrong. Agree or disagree?

"Inclined to be wrong"? I don't think so. Why would one need to be inclined to be wrong?


.

One the default position in OP was the origin of debate from ancient Greece not what is the modern day purpose of debate.

Now if someone has no inclinations to being wrong they never learn anything new ever. Being right within your own mind with no inclination of being wrong is ignorant of others and reality is you will be wrong more often than being right, unless that person is delusional, egomaniac, well basically suffering from a multitude of varying personality disorders. Mainly cluster A & B and some forms of OCD from cluster C.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/294307-overview

[Miles]

[Replying to post 2 by Miles]

Did you watch the Ted Talks?

Didn't, but now have.

One the default position in OP was the origin of debate from ancient Greece not what is the modern day purpose of debate.

Really! I just thought it was an off hand observation.

Now if someone has no inclinations to being wrong they never learn anything new ever.
Being right within your own mind with no inclination of being wrong is ignorant of others and reality is you will be wrong more often than being right, unless that person is delusional, egomaniac, well basically suffering from a multitude of varying personality disorders. Mainly cluster A & B and some forms of OCD from cluster C.

I was simply replying to your: "Now question for debate."

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 2 by Miles]

Did you watch the Ted Talks?

Didn't, but now have.

One the default position in OP was the origin of debate from ancient Greece not what is the modern day purpose of debate.

Really! I just thought it was an off hand observation.

Now if someone has no inclinations to being wrong they never learn anything new ever.
Being right within your own mind with no inclination of being wrong is ignorant of others and reality is you will be wrong more often than being right, unless that person is delusional, egomaniac, well basically suffering from a multitude of varying personality disorders. Mainly cluster A & B and some forms of OCD from cluster C.

Inclinations : tendency towards, I have an inclination toward chocolate..

inclined: feeling or willingness or favourableness towards, slope, leaning towards I am inclined to disagree.

Don't be so sure of yourself. I think you have inclinations that your definition or use of inclined is correct, when it s only a inclined subjective bias.

[Miles]

Inclinations : tendency towards, I have an inclination toward chocolate..

inclined: feeling or willingness or favourableness towards, slope, leaning towards I am inclined to disagree.

Don't be so sure of yourself. I think you have inclinations that your definition or use of inclined is correct, when it s only a inclined subjective bias.

From your OP

"to truly debate one must be inclined to be wrong."

Using your definitions, and properly phrased.


........"To truly debate one must have a tendency towards being wrong."


........"To truly debate one must be favorably disposed toward being wrong."


........"To truly debate one must lean toward being wrong."





INCLINED

"If you're inclined to do something, you want to do it, you like doing it, and you may even have an inherent talent for doing it.

Inclined means that you're likely to do something, you're leaning toward doing it, or you do it habitually.

(often followed by `to') having a preference, disposition, or tendency
........source


........Get it now?



..

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 7 by Miles]

Writing bigger does not make you correct, at all.

in·cline
verb
past tense: inclined; past participle: inclined
inˈklīn/
1.
feel willing or favorably disposed toward (an action, belief, or attitude).
"he was inclined to accept the offer"
synonyms: disposed, of a mind, willing, ready, prepared; predisposed
"if you feel so inclined"
2.
have a tendency to do something.
"she's inclined to gossip with complete strangers"
synonyms: prone, given, liable, likely, apt, wont
"she's inclined to gossip"

"feel willing"
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Inclined ... 0&ie=UTF-8

Get it now.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 7 by Miles]

In order to be inclined does not always mean "wants to be" it can mean feeling pressured. "He was inclined to accept the gift but did not want it."
"I was inclined to agree because of circumstance."
"Unfortunately I was inclined to admit being wrong, due to the evidence."

Hmmmm

Maybe I should be inclined to use a larger font size, in order to explain the use of inclined, as per CONTEXT.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 9 by Excubis]

Now I will grant a saving grace the usage as per context is not common but that does not change it's contextual relevance. Just because it is not often used as such does not mean it is wrong. Commonality does not bequest validity as per religion.