I've been a member of this forum since late 2013, have faced my fair share of debates(both wins and losses) and learned the fact as time goes I keep getting better at beating down on my point well as present facts to back them up. However the better I've gotten at this the less I've become to engage parties with different viewpoints from mine concerning a subject. I've learned to wave most off as ignorant individuals who hopefully(in time) would get educated for the better -- only by someone else.

My question this evening is, I want to know: do debates on nairaland really change people's differing points of view. Do they educate opposing commenters? Do they speed up agreed action toward a cause or only end up as hot air, wasted time and energy at the end of the day?

In developed countries, many serious issues go under the scrutiny of debates before efforts go into action to expedite decisions following their results e.g. the Scottish referendum, the Brexit controversy and the ongoing US elections. One wonders why here in Nigeria the issue of Biafra has not gone under such microscope since it would serve as better public relations for the country under an international context.

I've come to learn a lot of fiercely contested page-long debates I actively engaged in from the past now feature my account going head to head against later deleted accounts most likely done after their users learned the errors of their ways. Some arguments also originate from trolls looking to rile people up the wrong way and then proceed to continue the cycle using alternate accounts.

A good example of sub-sections I've seen debates work well is the religion section where sometimes(now becoming a majority of times) atheists are able to make faithfuls question their religion and somewhere down the line become atheist themselves. In the romance section, some individuals actually work according to information passed here but the majority of question askers completely disregard consensus from posters only for them to ask again for advice once their situation goes south.

A long read, I know but hopefully this would lead to a healthy discussion because many times I've seen ignorant views I know are easily changeable but the thought of typing page upon page of evidence to the contrary makes me wonder if there's really a need, especially if the person getting the education might convince themselves my points are only silly rhetoric.

Na who debates epp?

divinehand2003:
Na who debates epp?

The ignorant. A google search from an opposing poster sometimes open my eyes to facts I never knew.

I speak and think and write for me, myself and I. A few times, I learn from the debates, but most times, it just a waste of time and energy.

"I've learned to wave most off as ignorant individuals who hopefully(in time) would get educated for the better". I wish I could do this, but it's hard, extremely hard....

opeaceo:
I speak and think and write for me, myself and I. A few times, I learn from the debates, but most times, it just a waste of time and energy.

Same conclusion I came to. I now share ideas as opposed to debate on issues. I penned up the article to conclude my assumption if debates're truly a waste of time or an activity people really learn from.

"I've learned to wave most off as ignorant individuals who hopefully(in time) would get educated for the better". I wish I could do this, but it's hard, extremely hard....

As time and your post count rise you would naturally learn it. If you notice, most posters with extremely high post counts(5,000 and above) hardly debate.

charix:
I've been a member of this forum since late 2013, have faced my fair share of debates(both wins and losses) and learned the fact as time goes I keep getting better at beating down on my point well as present facts to back them up. However the better I've gotten at this the less I've become to engage parties with different viewpoints from mine concerning a subject. I've learned to wave most off as ignorant individuals who hopefully(in time) would get educated for the better -- only by someone else.

My question this evening is, I want to know: do debates on nairaland really change people's differing points of view. Do they educate opposing commenters? Do they speed up agreed action toward a cause or only end up as hot air, wasted time and energy at the end of the day?

In developed countries, many serious issues go under the scrutiny of debates before efforts go into action to expedite decisions following their results e.g. the Scottish referendum, the Brexit controversy and the ongoing US elections. One wonders why here in Nigeria the issue of Biafra has not gone under such microscope since it would serve as better public relations for the country under an international context.

I've come to learn a lot of fiercely contested page-long debates I actively engaged in from the past now feature my account going head to head against later deleted accounts most likely done after their users learned the errors of their ways. Some arguments also originate from trolls looking to rile people up the wrong way and then proceed to continue the cycle using alternate accounts.

A good example of sub-sections I've seen debates work well is the religion section where sometimes(now becoming a majority of times) atheists are able to make faithfuls question their religion and somewhere down the line become atheist themselves. In the romance section, some individuals actually work according to information passed here but the majority of question askers completely disregard consensus from posters only for them to ask again for advice once their situation goes south.

A long read, I know but hopefully this would lead to a healthy discussion because many times I've seen ignorant views I know are easily changeable but the thought of typing page upon page of evidence to the contrary makes me wonder if there's really a need, especially if the person getting the education might convince themselves my points are only silly rhetoric.

Debates are of nonsense, they are more symbolic than of substance, not all problems can be solved in the realm of logic, language and rhetoric. This is due to the fact; which escapes the uninitiated, the ignorant, the unlearned and the arrogant one, spirit is intertwined with the world in which we live. Some problems have their causes in the physical yet some in the spiritual. Trying to fix a physical problem with juju or traditional medicine is the same as fixing a motor on a car by changing the tire. And likewise with the spiritual problem attempting to be solved by physical means. You can't see the problem truly, in its real sense, unless at first you properly identify its cause. All debates are about phenomenon in the world. Men are perplexed by the varied differences of views and opinions, which is wrong, which is right, who is accurate? Would you go to a doctor for an injury if he debated his prescriptions? No, a doctor must be precise in his prescription. He must identity the cause of your injury or risk worsening it. Debates are loved by African people, we thrive in the cess pool of intellectual masturbation. We love to undermine our own actions before we make them appear. Our dreams fade when Pan Africans, Black Nationalists, government, and other political and social orders debate what must be done to fix our chaotic world. We lack men and women of action, we believe our myriad of issues can be solved with logic, language and rhetoric. So much so we socially elect anyone our leader because they can woo us with words, defeat our arguments with rhetoric, and all they need is a little logic. We are too much into what other people think. Sango acts boldly, doesn't give a damn about lesser nobodies. Doesn't waste time jaw jacking and trying to prove who is more prestigious. This is why Sango is King of Kings. The Alaafin of Oyo, Imperial Majesty Oba Adeyemi III, Baba Sango says, he doesn't argue his points, that he makes jokes, and he doesn't want to be seen arguing with his subjects. When you meet a man of might, a man of action, a man of substance, neither will he debate with you. Ase.

KingSango:


Debates are of nonsense, they are more symbolic than of substance, not all problems can be solved in the realm of logic, language and rhetoric. This is due to the fact; which escapes the uninitiated, the ignorant, the unlearned and the arrogant one, spirit is intertwined with the world in which we live. Some problems have their causes in the physical yet some in the spiritual. Trying to fix a physical problem with juju or traditional medicine is the same as fixing a motor on a car by changing the tire. And likewise with the spiritual problem attempting to be solved by physical means. You can't see the problem truly, in its real sense, unless at first you properly identify its cause. All debates are about phenomenon in the world. Men are perplexed by the varied differences of views and opinions, which is wrong, which is right, who is accurate? Would you go to a doctor for an injury if he debated his prescriptions? No, a doctor must be precise in his prescription. He must identity the cause of your injury or risk worsening it. Debates are loved by African people, we thrive in the cess pool of intellectual masturbation. We love to undermine our own actions before we make them appear. Our dreams fade when Pan Africans, Black Nationalists, government, and other political and social orders debate what must be done to fix our chaotic world. We lack men and women of action, we believe our myriad of issues can be solved with logic, language and rhetoric. So much so we socially elect anyone our leader because they can woo us with words, defeat our arguments with rhetoric, and all they need is a little logic. We are too much into what other people think. Sango acts boldly, doesn't give a damn about lesser nobodies. Doesn't waste time jaw jacking and trying to prove who is more prestigious. This is why Sango is King of Kings. The Alaafin of Oyo, Imperial Majesty Oba Adeyemi III, Baba Sango says, he doesn't argue his points, that he makes jokes, and he doesn't want to be seen arguing with his subjects. When you meet a man of might, a man of action, a man of substance, neither will he debate with you. Ase.

Apart from references to spirits and deities which I long stopped believing in this is a proper write up.
Thanks.


I'd stick to sharing ideas rather than debates. They're more productive and lead to positive change.