Again, not one single acknowledgement. I no longer see a point in responding... it's like spitting at the moon. No matter what anyone says...
I am glad censorship exists. That's my last comment on this topic.
Yeah, see, I actually devoted half my post to discussing your point. If you don't want to read it that's fine, but don't blame me.
And as for your last comment, how can you consider that anything but close-minded?
Again, not one single acknowledgement. I no longer see a point in responding... it's like spitting at the moon. No matter what anyone says...
I am glad censorship exists. That's my last comment on this topic.
Desiring debate in and of itself does't show a lack of open mindedness, it's when someone seeks out (or, in particular, initiates) a debate solely for the purpose of presenting their entrenched and immovable position rather than to hash out an idea and to actually hear other peoples opinions that shows a lack of open mindedness.
That's not a debate. It is a diatribe.
I agree, but they're often dressed up as an invitation to debate here.
I agree, but they're often dressed up as an invitation to debate here.
Unfortunately, that's true not only here at chess.com.
Care to debate it?
Don't try to press your ideals upon me! The sky is not blue.
These aren't my ideals... these are universal ideals.
Debate for the sake of debating is a waste of energy and time imo. I for one really couldn't be bothered debating every subject that comes up. Life is too short for that.
Whatever happended to general friendly conversation? Why does everything have to be a debate?
The problem with most forms of debating here is that there is no acknowledgement of the opposing side's argument. The debater seems to just want to "win the debate" which too often turns ugly. Is there a debating university in the USA or something where everyone goes to learn how to be a debate champion or what??
I agree with BQ. What is the point in debating just to debate? No one gets anywhere because neither side will budge.
Eebster, desiring debate shows you lack open-mindedness which renders debate meaningless. No one SHOULD desire debate, because it leads to argument, which leads to fighting, and so on. It's pointless in the end. What do you accomplish from debating others for no reason anyways? Life involves others, sure, but it's more about what beliefs you hold and how true you are to yourself and your beliefs rather than imposing your beliefs on others. Sharing your beliefs is fine, but debating them just for the sake of debate? Good grief. That says to me that you care less of the subject and you are just looking for a fight. Of course, that is just my belief though, so I won't argue about it.
This frustrates me to no end. Debating IS about the free exchange of ideas, but it is more than that. It is about actually analyzing them for what they are worth. If we are never willing to debate any of our ideas, how do we ever expect to value the best ones? In all areas of science and of academia, debate is prevalent and necessary to ensure that new ideas are well-tested and scrutinized and to reach a consensus. In politics, debate is prevalent to ensure that the public is being well served and to reach compromise. Yet online, debate is just "pointless" and "close-minded."
That "close-minded" claim is particularly absurd. Holding to your ideas completely and being unwilling to consider others is the very definition of close-minded. Refusing debate is the perfection of stubbornness. Maybe I just don't want to? But that never crossed your "open mind" did it? Debate itself is the exact opposite--it forces a consideration of other positions. True debate isn't mere contradiction or grandstanding, it involves real clash of ideas, specific responses to opposing points, evidence, and warranted explanation of positions. I try whenever possible to apply this to my own debates, though I don't always succeed. But I hardly ever see this from you, Borgqueen, or you, Duke, although you still superficially continue a debate. You are more concerned with deriding my ideas than debating them or promoting your own.
Look through the previous posts and tell me where I have been "close-minded" or when you have been "open." You frequently drop the entirety of my posts only to equate me with some sort of child-abuser or otherwise bad parent.
TL;DR: If you don't want to debate, please don't. But don't deride those who do and accuse them of being close-minded and of ruining children.
I like being called 'close minded' when I don't care to debate. Thank you. You aren't understanding any of my points, which is why I don't debate and why I don't care to. So stop attacking me, PLEASE. It's quite the 'mosquito-bite'. I told you I didn't want to debate this topic so don't bring be into it. Please AND thank you.
P.S. I don't care if you think both this post and me are stupid. I still sleep at night.
Duke, I never once in my entire post accused you of anything. I was responding to the claim that I was close-minded. Stop feeling persecuted and stop attacking me with phrases like "that never crossed your mind," and just chill.
Eebster wrote: "Debating IS about the free exchange of ideas, but it is more than that. It is about actually analyzing them for what they are worth."
*sighs* What's the difference in what you described debate as and writing a blog? I see none. I think you have the wrong idea about debating, because debating is supposed to be used to convince people one way or the other about different ideas and ideals. Which means, you argue. Debating is not "civilized" argument, in fact I would say that debating involves much insult and just as much personal attacking. There is such thing as 'civilized debate' though, in which there will be a moderator(s) to determine which side wins, and there is no personal attacking or insulting in such - except in politics, where personal attacking is always "welcomed." When you debate people, it's to tell them that they are wrong. Which, in fact, I am doing right now. It's when two or more sides fight their point of view with (an)other side(s). In the end, it's all still fighting. Which, I may not be a pacifist, but I still hate fighting (yet sometimes if I'm annoyed enough, I'll say something). Don't say debate is a 'free exchange of ideas' when you are not 'exchanging' anything. You are referring to a forum. Debate is not a forum. 'Freely exchanging' means that you put your belief out there and you hear ideals from other people. Debate is that, but with attacking other people's ideals. So, in essence, debate actually has nothing to do with 'free exchange' because it all comes with a price: there are winners and losers.
Second point, debate IS about being close-minded. It means that you will argue for your point and only your point. If you have second thoughts, CONGRATULATIONS!!! ... you lost the debate... If someone says they don't want to debate, it doesn't mean they are 'stubborn' or 'close-minded' (except being stubborn or close-minded about debate) it just means that they don't want to argue for what the believe. In fact, it can be looked at as extremely open-minded because maybe they don't actually know if they believe what they "believe" or if what they believe is true. Having strong beliefs means you are close-minded; having an 'open-mind' doesn't mean you listen to other people, it means that you won't argue with people about it because you don't have concrete beliefs. Essentially anyone who has concrete ideals is close-minded because they won't change their mind. If you do change your mind, it either means that your belief wasn't deeply thought through enough or that you didn't cling too much to your belief to know whether it was truth.
You want to 'freely exchange' your beliefs with people? Say it, but don't spray it. If you look for fights, you will get them, and in the end, you will never be satisfied.
Now I will chill, because my spaceship landed in Antarctica. I'm done now. (finally)
Can someone please tell me the difference between "strategic chess" and "positional chess"??
How about someone posts a game to use as an example. That might help. Maybe? I'm just trying to help since I kind of destroyed the discussion ... sorry... 
I already read your blog, and I didn't find what I needed. Sorry... I need visual examples. Actual played games, if you will. So, if someone has one please post it. Thanks... I wait to your answer...
Each time the posts in this thread are larger
Yes, but the good news is that it looks like each page still contains 20 posts, so the total number of pages required to reach the thread length record is unaffected.
Duke, you seem intent on painting debate as some sort of enraged verbal deathmatch. As somebody who has been involved in competitive debate for years, I can tell you that this need not be the case. In fact, I usually consider that to be the difference between "debate" and "argument," or simply "altercation."
I don't mind you not wanting to debate, that is fine with me. But stop trying to insist that what I do is pointless, close-minded, or otherwise terrible.
Topic change is required.
Can someone please tell me the difference between "strategic chess" and "positional chess"??
I wait to your response.
When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern gunnery When I know more of tactics than a novice in a nunnery In short, when I've a smattering of elemental strategy You'll say a better Major-General had never sat a gee
Desiring debate in and of itself does't show a lack of open mindedness, it's when someone seeks out (or, in particular, initiates) a debate solely for the purpose of presenting their entrenched and immovable position rather than to hash out an idea and to actually hear other peoples opinions that shows a lack of open mindedness.