Two-Sided Debates

[Jpec07]

Coyote1023

I hereby submit that, in order to form a weighty argument for the form of a formal debate, the two parties do not in fact need a topic over which to debate. It is a fairly simple thing to formulate words around the mere opposition of thought and premise to that of another individual. In order to debate, a topic is not necessary.

[Denominator]

I wholeheartedly disagree.

It is utterly impossible to debate for the sake of debating, and obviously nobody will participate in debates simply to prove their opposition wrong. You cannot parry words without a topic to form them around, so your idea is preposterous.

[Nulls Wife]

I wholeheartedly disagree.

It is utterly impossible to debate for the sake of debating, and obviously nobody will participate in debates simply to prove their opposition wrong. You cannot parry words without a topic to form them around, so your idea is preposterous.


For as well as you know Null, you obviously don't know how much he enjoys debating for the sake of debating. If anyone could debate without a topic, I guarantee he could and would.

[DeathsFriend22]

For as well as you know Null, you obviously don't know how much he enjoys debating for the sake of debating. If anyone could debate without a topic, I guarantee he could and would.

No, even Null needs a topic over which to debate. If you have nothing to debate about, your words are meaningless gibberish.

[Nulls Wife]

Technically though, as soon as one person says one word, then there is a topic that can be debated. It may not be a defined topic, but a topic none the less.

[PsychoBucket]

I wholeheartedly disagree.

It is utterly impossible to debate for the sake of debating, and obviously nobody will participate in debates simply to prove their opposition wrong. You cannot parry words without a topic to form them around, so your idea is preposterous.

I agree, except that people do debate for the sake of debating.

[RightSideTheory]

This thread is proving the OP. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

[Null Parameter]

This thread is proving the OP. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
No it isn't, because the OP is the topic.

[Canadians360]

I dont know if you would call it a debate, but certainly there have been arguments without a subject.

For example person one just randomly shouts no in a chat.
Person two: Yes
Person one: No way
person two: Ya huh
...

They can go for a while. If you would call that a debate then I'd say yes you can debate without a subject. To me though its just spewing argumentative words without purpose.

[Denominator]

No it isn't, because the OP is the topic.

That was my point.