Graceful retreat

[KL-666]

I want to draw attention to an aspect of decency in debating, that is often forgotten about nowadays. If you are on the upper hand of a debate, then allow your opponent a graceful retreat. Do not hunt him down in an effort to humiliate him to the bone. Everyone can already see from the debate itself that you are more right than your opponent, and your opponent also knows it. At such moment you should let go, even if your opponent speaks a last word in his defense.

There will come another debate between you two. And if you have deeply humiliated your opponent last time, there are deep wounds which prevent the new debate to grow above the level of an insult party.

Try to remember this, the next time you are more right than your opponent: Leave room for a graceful retreat.

Kind regards, Vincent

[Lydiot]

I'd rather have a discussion where the goal is to find the truth, as far as that's possible, than to have a "debate" where two opponents are trying to win.

[KL-666]

Yes, and in such discussion someone may realize he has defended the wrong end of truth. Then the other should not go like: You see how stupid you are, you even now admit it yourself, etc, etc... No, leave room for a graceful retreat from the previous standpoint.

Kind regards, Vincent

[jwocky]

Well, and if you get beaten up once more after you posted, "I let it go this time", what then? Just curious?

[KL-666]

Hello Jwocky,

It is difficult for me to see whether the very specific situation i am talking about fits the one sentence you gave me. Maybe it is better that you judge whether it fits.

I am talking specifically about the behaviour of the "winner" of a point of discussion, when the other has implicitly acknowledged that he was wrong. Then the "winner" should not start a Spanish Inquisition to force the other to explicitly yell from the roofs how wrong he was. Such Inquisition serves no other purpose than exposing and humiliating, which is not necessary for the discussion. The other has already implicitly acknowledged.

I am saying this not as a tool for me to judge others. It would be nice if everyone realizes for themselves what not to do when they "win" a point of discussion.

[edit]
Btw. Recognizing implicit acknowledgements can be quite difficult. Finding them is easier if you try to understand the meaning of complete messages, instead of focusing on individual sentences.
[/edit]

@Lydiot
Sorry for the word "winner". It is not that i see it as winning, but i needed a word to separate the discussants.

Kind regards, Vincent

[jwocky]

Well, so

first I said, I let it go, then after getting the next bad tricks served, I reacted but tried to get out of the whole thing, which woudl have only worked if there would have been some degree of silence over the actual clash, so that didn't work either ... and now I am reported and got PMs with "balls in my face" (and that's a quote). So well, given the previous history and seeing this was only a continuation of what was already going on on a non-public level, I claim my First Amendment rights.

[Lydiot]

jwocky, he might not be referring to you. I think he makes a good point in principle.

[KL-666]

Indeed i do not have specific cases in mind. This came up because i noticed some of the behaviour in several discussions over time.

Btw, Jwocky, which part of the First Amendment do you claim? Are you planning to establish a religion?

Kind regards, Vincent

[IAHM-COL]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Prob. he meant his "freedom of speech or of the press" part of it.
Cause, JWocky does not come as the religious kinda guy.

[jwocky]

Nope, I don't plan on establishing a religion ... but I would defend your right to do so if you plan because it's in your 1st Amendment rights