Debating vs. Flaming!

DISCLAIMER: This thread is not meant to offend anyone or hurt feelings. All This thread is doing is informing the reader of the thread in question. I am not responsible for any possible flaming or hate about this thread So in recent weeks, I have noticed that many people have avoided conflict of ideas in general. This is not a good thing, guys! These conflicts of ideas help us reform and change our community for the better! In a quick addition, I hope that this thread can help identify these two different ideas. c:

I understand that many people avoid these conflicts because they are uneducated about the difference between Flaming and Debating!

The difference is very simple! In flaming, you are using emotions(in most situations, anger and stress) to determine their argument and claims. This includes the use of vulgar words and personal insults. This identifies the action of flaming.
Debating is different.

During a debate, you and your opponent use claims and arguments, while bringing up valid and reliable sources, to support them. While doing this, you should also break down your opponent's argument while, again, bringing up valid and trustworthy sources! Sources include websites, books, and documentaries.

It is recommended that you avoid using the following sources:
• Wikipedia
•YouTube
•News stations
• Anything that advertises a product while you are reading(this does not include side-advertisements)

Contradictory, these are some sites that are recommended:
•Newspaper sites
•.gov
•.org
•.edu

Of course, you can use any site you please, but if you truly want to prove your side correct, I strongly recommend using and avoiding the specified sites above.

A debate is won when one side is out of reasons that are not countered by the other side. This, I feel, will surely be a help in suggestions!

Good example of flaming:
http://www.itsjerryandharry.com/index.php?threads/could-you-start-a-tutorial-discussion-vote.3060/

Good example of debating: Hopefully many threads after this one!

EDIT LOG: Fixed some minor spelling and punctuation.
Added Disclaimer

 

"Avoid Wikipedia, YouTube And news stations"

dafuq

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Wikipedia. Believe it or not, not EVERYONE can randomly edit articles. They did an experiment, and Wikipedia's quality is that of the Encylcopedia Britannica.

YouTube... What the hell is wrong with YouTube?

News stations.. you're kidding... And then you just said newspapers in the "approved sources". Just because something isn't printed in paper doesn't mean it's wrong.

.org is just a prefix for website made by an organization. That's not really a criterion for "trust"

"anything that has an ad while you are reading"
well i guess i can't use every website, newspapers or magazines

 

...

I agree with what you've said. The problem here though, is that the majority of the forums are not ready for debates, shown where debates erupt into flame wars after several threads.

 

News stations like fox and channel 6 news, ect. Are deemed untrustworthy.

YouTube has absolutely no restrictions on reliability, and Nearly every sector in the wiki can be edited. Very bad management there.

.org's are a bit more reliable that .com's

By ads, I mean pop ups. A good example is when you're watching a YouTube video and you randomly hear singing or people talking. This disrupts the whole video and causes you to stop. That is what I mean by ads. The reason I put that there is because it shows that they don't really care about you or your mission, they just want you to get money.

 

*Back to the topic*

Great explanation! :L I totally agree with you bru.

 

People at our age really aren't suitable for debates, no offense.
During a debate, you must keep level headed, which is a hard task on its own.
If people start losing the debate, they get angry.

If they get angry, they start to use insults.

The other party is insulted, and then they start using insults.

Bam. Flame War begins.

 

If most of us control what we say, and as long as the topic doesn't get too 'hot', it'll be ok. You've got my point where we're not suitable for debates yet, but we might be in the future.

Back on topic...

The intention of this thread was good, and is an important thing that most of us need to know by now. I still disagree with where to get your debate facts, as long as you have a valid statement, supported with enough proof, the argument is valid. Wikipedia is actually a valuable source of information, its' not as bad as how your usual teacher describes it.

Well, thats my point, so I'm out.

 

me and joey in the minecon location(debate) teo skin comp(flame)

 

But, like I said, Wikipedia isn't just some random playground for random information. See those "References" at the bottom of the page? All of those are legitimate sources that have provided information to the article. They have editors and bots that detect when you edit. If I went on the Wikipedia page for Barack Obama and edited it to say "Barack Obama was born in Potatoland". The auto-editor would detect that, send it to an editor and they would change it. You can really never get away with editing the HUGE articles that people need to read, like ones about famous people and countries. With the smaller articles that no one reads, you possibly could get away for editing those for a while. But if the page is that unimportant anyway, you wouldn't use it in the first place. I'm not saying Wikipedia is the BEST or ONLY source you can use, but if you need information from somewhere that you can't find anywhere else, Wikipedia is fine.

 

lol guess what

I got away with editing 'British' to bitchish for 4-6 months, but they fixed it now. xD

Totally agree with the wikipedia case, and 'Is Wikipedia a reliable source of information' can be a hot debate topic, if controlled properly.

 

Now this is starting to become a debate. Youtube is probably not reliable, unless the channel is owned by an educational company. If you wanna debate about history for example, Pewdiepie would probably not be a good source.

 

There still are some channels that are "privately owned" that are okay. For example, Vsauce, CGPGrey, MinutePhysics, etc.
They all cite their sources in the description and most of them are qualified scientists.

 

Yes this is true we should debate as it helps bring up conflict of interest.