With regard to religion, which do you feel is more satisfying: Argument or agreement?

Question

Is it better to have a debate and get the better of your opponent, or discuss something with someone who agrees with you?

Answer 1

I enjoy an exchange of ideas between intellectual equals... but this venue is not amenable to that. Here, what I see is an opportunity to open minds, provoke people to think... and to expose the gullibility, delusion and downright stupidity that is encompassed in faith-based religious belief. The latter, I regard as my ethical responsibility and moral duty as a sane and rational human being... in an effort to intervene on behalf of vulnerable minds that might otherwise be influenced by such insults to reason and sanity.

Answer 2

I find the most satisfying is a discussion in which both parties accept each others views and are willing to share the reasons for the views that they have. In my view there is just too much competition stressed in the world and not enough attempt to try to see and learn why others do have the outlook on what they do see. For some reason all just want to be the winner rather than to learn from the experience.I personally see this as a very sad state of affairs.

I come to this Q&A to learn and enjoy rather than to fight to the death to try to win. With the "Rough Bunch" here one can sure learn a lot without much effort if that is the desire.

Answer 3

Debate... in a civil manner. I wouldn't call what we have in here Debate or a civil argument. But I find that just discussing something with someone who agrees with everything I say is boring and I would rather find someone I can learn something from than to sit with a yes-man. But then, even with people that may agree with my view, I tend to play Devils Advocate, just to see how the other side handles a differing view point.

Answer 4

I always enjoy a good debate, but I often find the more I debate someone the more I find common things to agree with them on.

Answer 5

From an oratory point of view, it's always best to be able to convey your ideas in ways that cause people to think, and possibly side with you. This doesn't mean you're getting "the better of your opponent" (a rather adversarial way of stating it) but that you're effecting insight or epiphany.

Of course, it's usually egotistically satisfying to brow beat someone in a debate.

Personally, I'm guilty of both.

Answer 6

I like debating with people who are open-minded, and can at least have respect for my argument whether they agree with it or not. Its fun discussing things with people who agree with me, but obviously R&S would become rather boring if there weren't a wide array of folks in here.

Answer 7

I love a good argument/debate. I always aim to win, but that doesn't mean that even if I do win that I'm not listening to the other person and taking what they're saying into consideration. Even if I win or don't concede, they still might win me over to their way of thinking.

Answer 8

I don't know if its important to get the best of someone in an argument, but rather I feel understanding another view,regardless If I agree or not, is more of an opportunity to learn.

Answer 9

Neither. It's better to have a discussion between people with differing views who aren't trying to brow-beat each other into submission (or "get the better of" them), because talking only with people who agree with you on everything gets boring.

It's possible to DISCUSS without ARGUING.

Answer 10

Well its nice to find people that agree with me, since few in my real life do. (God fearing, Bush loving, evangelicals mostly)
But nothing gets me fired up like a good disagreement about religion, politics or sex! It brings out my competitive side :)