Practical debate vs. Rhetorical debate

[Swami]

In my experience, debate boils down to two types: rhetorical and practical.

Rhetorical debate is the most common. It involves the use of speaking or writing to persuade. Of course, this involves articulating your point with logic and evidence.

Practical debate is more of a spin off of the concept of 'practical knowledge'. Rather than trying to persuade with words alone, you also persuade by getting others to experience your views. In this way, the evidence offered is not only explained but can also be put into practice to be experienced.

So the only difference between rhetoric and practical debate is the latter integrates a practical approach to persuasion. They are both similar in that they both deal with the essence of debating which is to get an opposing side to see the truth, if possible.

More Definitions
Practical knowledge is knowledge that is acquired by day-to-day hands-on experiences. In other words, practical knowledge is gained through doing things; it is very much based on real-life endeavors and tasks. On the other hand, theoretical knowledge teaches the reasoning, techniques and theory of knowledge. While practical knowledge is gained by doing things, theoretical knowledge is gained, for example, by reading a manual.


The benefits and necessity of my approach
- The opponent doesn't simply have to rely on my word or the word of a scientist, but rather they can verify it for themselves.
- Some topics can only be understood if or when someone experiences it. I don't expect to convince someone that disbelieves in the thrill of driving fast that they are wrong because of my experience or the experience of others. Any debate based solely on words or texts would have to end here. The best way to settle this debate is to employ a style that not only uses rhetoric but also offering evidence that the disbeliever can experience for himself. The same goes for a lot of the topics I deal with in regards to consciousness and experience.
- My view takes full advantage of the Eastern approach where religious experiences are largely "voluntary" instead of just hoping or waiting for some spirit contacts you.


For Skeptics
Despite what many like zzyzx has said, my style is not a matter of laziness or some cover up for an inability to prove my point. In fact, to the contrary, it is a way to expose those who are not really seeking truth. If there's a way for you to experience these things for yourself, why wouldn't you do it? Why wouldn't you do it especially when you know that it has the power of convincing you based on all of the evidence of atheists who have converted due to religious experience?

If my style is the problem, can you tell me another way I can use my experiential model in a debate? Perhaps, some would prefer that I don't use it at all, but then I would question if such a person is open to changing their beliefs.

[Swami]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

Our disagreement stems from you not valuing meditation as an objective tool. If Western science were to adopt meditation as a scientific method for knowledge rather than as a clinical tool (mental health) then the experiences from it would have to be distinguished from the random experiences that you bring up.

Your disagreement stems from the fact that you value your experiences as more valid than other's. You reveal this fact by calling the experiences DI brings up as random. Quite hypocritically, you continue to consider your experiences as authoritative.


Once again, it is clear that you don't value experience. You value only your experience. You consider it as valid and all others, unless they lead to the same conclusions you reach, as invalid. Your argument boils down to nothing more sophisticated than, "I'm right and you're wrong."



Tcg

Debate = ego.

Tcg from now on you are on ignore. I am not even doing it for myself but rather I'm doing it protect you from your own ego. It seems that all you are doing is arguing just to argue. This is unacceptable for two reasons:

It is not honest debate. Secondly, you know nothing about Eastern thought and practices but yet you're trying to tell me that I'm wrong and trying to attack all of my claims. When someone doesn't know anything about a worldview, I would assume that this person would want to learn about it before attacking it.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

Our disagreement stems from you not valuing meditation as an objective tool. If Western science were to adopt meditation as a scientific method for knowledge rather than as a clinical tool (mental health) then the experiences from it would have to be distinguished from the random experiences that you bring up.

Your disagreement stems from the fact that you value your experiences as more valid than other's. You reveal this fact by calling the experiences DI brings up as random. Quite hypocritically, you continue to consider your experiences as authoritative.


Once again, it is clear that you don't value experience. You value only your experience. You consider it as valid and all others, unless they lead to the same conclusions you reach, as invalid. Your argument boils down to nothing more sophisticated than, "I'm right and you're wrong."



Tcg

Tcg from now on you are on ignore.

I, and everyone who doesn't agree that your experience trumps theirs, has been on ignore in one manner or another perpetually. In your own estimation, you have had the proper experience. In your own estimation, all experiences that don't agree with yours are false.


You aren't basing your conclusions on the totality of experience, but rather your own narrow experience. It isn't practical debate vs. rhetorical debate, it is your experience versus all others. Given that you consider yourself the ultimate authority on experience, you can't tolerate honest debate. Honest debate reveals the fact that your conclusions are based on nothing more than your claim to have had the only proper experience.


You claim that experience leads to truth, but base this on your experience alone and display no evidence that you yourself have ever taken your own advice and attempted to experience what others have.



Tcg

[Neatras]

It's pretty clear for everyone to see that Razorsedge's modus operandi is just assertion and grandstanding. "Saving you from your own ego" is possibly the most arrogant thing I've read on this forum in a good long while.

Who would have thought that on a debate site with strict rules against preaching, that someone who only preaches and actively complains when debated or challenged on bald assertions would find opposition?

Razorsedge, you do exactly what you're called out for: Make assertions, tell others that they have to go through your little workout regimen, then dismiss them without even engaging in debate when they come out and tell you that your assertions didn't match their experience.

Razorsedge, if someone has an experience contradictory to what you claim about reality, by what means can you investigate or repudiate their claim without falling back on simply reasserting yourself as right and everyone else as wrong?

[Swami]

It's pretty clear for everyone to see that Razorsedge's modus operandi is just assertion and grandstanding. "Saving you from your own ego" is possibly the most arrogant thing I've read on this forum in a good long while.

Who would have thought that on a debate site with strict rules against preaching, that someone who only preaches and actively complains when debated or challenged on bald assertions would find opposition?

What I can't accept are people who aren't willing to take the first step to experience for themselves. And then to find these same people raising questions and attacking ad nauseam.

Just imagine that all of the questions and objections that are raised could be answered if people just took the time to do the "field research" (explore and experience for themselves) instead of having to deal with endless debates.

Razorsedge, if someone has an experience contradictory to what you claim about reality, by what means can you investigate or repudiate their claim without falling back on simply reasserting yourself as right and everyone else as wrong?

Your concern does not apply to my worldview when it comes to meditation. The reason I say this is because meditation is a "tool" to isolate consciousness by itself. Like a screw driver, it has the same function or purpose no matter in whose hand it is.

Experiences that people have brought up in the past, like speaking in tongues, etc. I can't speak to those. I believe NDEs are real because there are no different than OBEs which I've induced through meditation except that they always happen at the point of when the body is beginning to die.

[Tcg]

What I can't accept are people who aren't willing to take the first step to experience for themselves.

And yet you never attempt to understand, much less experience, the experiences of others. We are back to an arbitrary standard where your experiences are judged, by you, to be superior to the experiences you've not experienced.



Tcg

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 14 by Razorsedge]

So your answer is "I can't be wrong about this, therefore I don't need to deal with people whose experiences contradict my own." Marvelous.