Riding the Metaphorical Fence

Are you able to ride the fence?

  • I am always right.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    10

PretzelCorps

Registered Member
#1
I feel a good debate is one where both parties can see the reasoning behind both sides of the issue --> When there is an understanding between both parties, the debate becomes less about who is right and more about which side of the topic is truthful or correct.

When I enter a debate, often my opinion "rides the fence" somewhere in between, and I typically pick a side that strikes my fancy at the time, or makes sense to me --> I usually just go for the underdog that is either least defended or catching the most flak.

A friend of mine (Smelnick on these boards) often accuses me of trying too hard to make everyone happy :lol: --> But I feel it is important to strive for objectivity on all subjects, even if you already a developed opinion on said subject.

As you may or may not find out, I take pride in my ability to argue for both side of a topic --> Quote me on it later, should I start acting like an idiot. :lol:





When it comes to debates and issues (be them political, philosophical, or otherwise), how many of you can honestly say that you have the capability to "ride the fence", and see both sides of the story?

How many of you have the capability to argue for either side of an issue, almost-regardless of what the issue is? (I don't mean issues like pro-anarchy, and stuff like that)

Should you enter a debate that you don't have an opinion on, how do you pick which side to defend?

I cannot stand people that must always be right. Nobody is right 100% of the time, and anyone that pretends to be, is a fool (in my opinion :lol:).
 
Last edited:

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#2
I'd like to believe I do a good job of being able to play both sides of the field because it's what I aim for. I try to figure which side is most correct despite what I may think. For example, I think abortion is disgusting and should be generally disallowed however, it is much more disturbing to me to give the government that kind of power over a woman's body, so I'll side with the pro-choice crowd because it feels like the right option.
 

Nove

Registered Member
#3
I'm the same way. I am able to pick a side but I know both sides of an issue and if I don't I educate myself on it. Take gay marriage for example I'm personally against it but I had a 2 hour debate with a coworker defending it.
 

PretzelCorps

Registered Member
#4
For example, I think abortion is disgusting and should be generally disallowed however, it is much more disturbing to me to give the government that kind of power over a woman's body, so I'll side with the pro-choice crowd because it feels like the right option.
Actually, that was an example I was thinking of using --> My opinion on the matter often flops around like that, too.

"If you didn't want a baby, what the hell were you having so much unprotected sex for??!!" -- Pro-Life

"Then again, you're horribly stupid and abusive of your friends (let alone, a defenseless newborn).... Would it be a good idea to let you bring a baby into this world so unprepared?" -- Pro-Choice

"But then, it could always go up for adoption..." -- Pro-Life

It goes on. :lol:




Someone sent me a message that brought a potential issue to light --> This thread is not directed towards anybody on this forum, in any way, shape, or form. It's a question I've been planning to ask for a while now, but kept on forgetting to, until tonight...

I haven't butt heads with anybody here long enough to actually have a good or bad opinion on anyone's form --> It's much harder to tell, when you aren't face-to-face.
 
Last edited:

Tucker

Lion Rampant
#5
Two quotes that I often think about come to mind here. The first is "I actually thrill to having my mind changed," said by veteran talk show host Dennis Prager in a long-ago radio promo. The other, by Internet superstar and noted Taoist thinker Spugly Fuglet, is the infinitely ponderable "Everything you know is wrong."
 

1992

Registered Member
#6
I feel a good debate is one where both parties can see the reasoning behind both sides of the issue --> When there is an understanding between both parties, the debate becomes less about who is right and more about which side of the topic is truthful or correct.

When I enter a debate, often my opinion "rides the fence" somewhere in between, and I typically pick a side that strikes my fancy at the time, or makes sense to me --> I usually just go for the underdog that is either least defended or catching the most flak.

A friend of mine (Smelnick on these boards) often accuses me of trying too hard to make everyone happy :lol: --> But I feel it is important to strive for objectivity on all subjects, even if you already a developed opinion on said subject.

As you may or may not find out, I take pride in my ability to argue for both side of a topic --> Quote me on it later, should I start acting like an idiot. :lol:





When it comes to debates and issues (be them political, philosophical, or otherwise), how many of you can honestly say that you have the capability to "ride the fence", and see both sides of the story?

How many of you have the capability to argue for either side of an issue, almost-regardless of what the issue is? (I don't mean issues like pro-anarchy, and stuff like that)

Should you enter a debate that you don't have an opinion on, how do you pick which side to defend?

I cannot stand people that must always be right. Nobody is right 100% of the time, and anyone that pretends to be, is a fool (in my opinion :lol:).
I guess i am similar to you then. I always debate about the good and bad sides about a subject. I usually explain about the good side and then argue about the flaws, how bad the bad side is and what is it about. I have my English teacher to thank for this. He taught me to be more mature in my thinking and opinion. Yeah, I can said that i always ride the fence when conversing on issues. As for the people who always must be right, well lets say that sometimes people like me made them embarrassed when their points were effectively crippled from the very core. Then again, there are people like them who are ignorant and refuses to give up even though their points are in bad shape.... I take my hats off for them for sometimes they come up with incredibly strong and sensible points when their chips are down. When people try to be 100% right all the time, i think it is also a good thing because they push themselves to the limit but its like as you say, they do always look like a fool to others.

In conclusion, i am not that foolish to only look at one side of the coin while ignoring the other side. Normally in debates, there are no right or wrongs. Most of the time, something that sounds awfully wrong can be proven right by people. Its like that quote by... i forgot "There is no right or wrong, just proven right or wrong"
 

Wade8813

Registered Member
#7
I feel a good debate is one where both parties can see the reasoning behind both sides of the issue --> When there is an understanding between both parties, the debate becomes less about who is right and more about which side of the topic is truthful or correct.
If there are two sides to a topic, and one of them is correct and the other isn't, then anyone debating that side is therefore right (just saying...).
When I enter a debate, often my opinion "rides the fence" somewhere in between, and I typically pick a side that strikes my fancy at the time, or makes sense to me --> I usually just go for the underdog that is either least defended or catching the most flak.
Yeah, I sometimes do that. Another thing I often do is just debate various points that were made, regardless of which side made them. So it sometimes might seem like I'm flip flopping my stance, when in reality, I'm not.

A friend of mine (Smelnick on these boards) often accuses me of trying too hard to make everyone happy :lol: --> But I feel it is important to strive for objectivity on all subjects, even if you already a developed opinion on said subject.
I think you'll find that striving for objectivity will often have the opposite effect of 'making everyone happy'. That's why so many people were siding with Nosferatu Alucard in the Universal Reality thread - if nothing is objective, everyone can do what they want.

When it comes to debates and issues (be them political, philosophical, or otherwise), how many of you can honestly say that you have the capability to "ride the fence", and see both sides of the story?

How many of you have the capability to argue for either side of an issue, almost-regardless of what the issue is? (I don't mean issues like pro-anarchy, and stuff like that)
Often, but not always. (I don't quite get that pro-anarchy comment).

Two quotes that I often think about come to mind here. The first is "I actually thrill to having my mind changed," said by veteran talk show host Dennis Prager in a long-ago radio promo. The other, by Internet superstar and noted Taoist thinker Spugly Fuglet, is the infinitely ponderable "Everything you know is wrong."
I sometimes thrill to having my mind changed. But sometimes when it happens, it tosses your entire life into turmoil, if you changed you mind about something really important to you.

Also, saying "everything you know is wrong" is dumb, like saying "only the Sith believe in absolutes". If only the Sith believe in absolutes, how can a Jedi make that absolute statement? And if everything I know is wrong, if I know that everything I know is wrong (since I was just told it), then that statement that I know, is wrong.

(Okay, that last bit probably could have been phrased better... let me know if I need to try again).
 

PretzelCorps

Registered Member
#8
If there are two sides to a topic, and one of them is correct and the other isn't, then anyone debating that side is therefore right (just saying...).
I'm not disputing that --> What I'm saying is that often the "possibly more correct" side is still in dispute; can you argue for both sides, even when you disagree?

(I don't quite get that pro-anarchy comment).
I just wanted to example a debate that was ridiculous enough, and has an established "correct" side, such that 99% of people would not be able to effectively argue for the other (anarchy > government) side.
 

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#9
If there are two sides to a topic, and one of them is correct and the other isn't, then anyone debating that side is therefore right (just saying...).

Wade, you do understand the term "right" is subjective, right? You can believe with all your heart that it's right and it will always be wrong in the eyes of at least a dozen other people.
 

Wade8813

Registered Member
#10
I'm not disputing that --> What I'm saying is that often the "possibly more correct" side is still in dispute; can you argue for both sides, even when you disagree?
Yeah, but making it less about which side is right, is making it less about which side is objectively true. Making more about which side is objectively true, is making it more about which side is right.

Whatever else you were saying, that one sentence doesn't make sense.

I just wanted to example a debate that was ridiculous enough, and has an established "correct" side, such that 99% of people would not be able to effectively argue for the other (anarchy > government) side.
I'm not sure it's quite as ridiculous as you believe... :-/

If there are two sides to a topic, and one of them is correct and the other isn't, then anyone debating that side is therefore right (just saying...).

Wade, you do understand the term "right" is subjective, right? You can believe with all your heart that it's right and it will always be wrong in the eyes of at least a dozen other people.
If something is correct, then by definition, it is also right. That was all I was saying.

Although really, there are a few things (such as in math) that absolutely must be true, and even if a few people disagree, it's still right (and they're wrong).