This is an old page - it still exists for archival purposes, but it hasn't been on the menu since 2005, possibly earlier. That means I wrote it as a young teenager and found it embarrassing or redundant enough to disown it even when I was fifteen. Thus, it is probably outdated, poorly or childishly written and presented, and otherwise of questionable quality, and I do not necessarily endorse any views and opinions expressed here today. If you've stumbled upon it, treat it accordingly.
Well, what it says.
What is debating?
Debating (my definition) is when two or more people who have different opinions about something (in this case, Pokémon) discuss it friendly (as in not by insulting the other person) and attempt to break down the logic behind the other person's opinions. So basically, if there are a Pokémon fan and a Pokémon hater who are about to debate, let's call the Pokémon fan A and the Pokémon hater B, they will sit down, greet each other, and then A will maybe start by saying that he likes Pokémon. Then B asks: "Why?" A answers: "Because it's strategy." Then what B will try to do is proving that wrong, that is, B will try to prove with acceptable arguments that Pokémon is not strategy. Perhaps B agrees with A that Pokémon is strategy, but hates it for some other reason, so then B would maybe say: "Yes, I agree. But what I hate about Pokémon is that it has animal cruelty." See? Still discussing the same opinion, but a different reason (from the other person this time, but it doesn't have to be). Now, say A disagrees with this, and says "Pokémon is not animal cruelty." Then B says: "Why?" and then the true debate starts. A and B have found something they disagree on, and they will discuss it. Because what A is talking about is negative (he thinks it's not animal cruelty, but B thinks it is), A will probably ask B to say why he thinks it has animal cruelty. B says why, which will be a supporting argument, and then A uses his supporting arguments to say: "No, B's supporting arguments aren't true" (of course A won't say that, but that's what A means to do). Now, let's say A managed to disprove everything B can think of that supports his opinion that Pokémon has animal cruelty. Then B might say something like: "Well, I still think it has animal cruelty." That sentence is the signature saying of the defeated debater. But does that mean A has proved Pokémon is not animal cruelty? No. But A has proved that B has been backing up his opinions with false statements. That doesn't disable B's opinion, unless B is convinced himself. If B is not convinced, which is far the most likely, it's because B still has a reason to think Pokémon has animal cruelty, but doesn't yet know exactly what it is. But when either person has been defeated in the debate about a certain opinion, they can move on to the next one. Then they just go on, until they don't feel like they've got anything to say anymore. Then the debate has ended, and I'm 99% sure A will still like Pokémon and B will still hate it no matter how the debate went, but they've discussed it, gained valueable experience and proved some of the things the other one said false. I myself consider it well worth the time it took. If you don't, then don't bother to have an actual, long debate. Then just encourage others to. Get them to think.
But one of the very most important things in the debate between A and B: Not once did they directly insult each other. They may have said a bit of sarcastic comments, but no blatant insults at the other person simply for having a different opinion.
How do I start a debate?
Well, I recommend AP guestbooks or forums. Go there, and the first thing you should mention is that you're there to debate, not to insult or flame. Then maybe take something from the website and counter it, then finish with an invitation for anyone to take the webmaster's side. Then just wait. If someone replies and wants to debate, move on to the next part. However, don't get your hopes up, especially if the place has been full of flamers for ages.
Hey, I'm just getting "Pokémon sucks!" and swear words. How do I get them to debate?
If your obvious answer to this would be "It doesn't", you need to rethink the way you debate. This will get you nowhere. Instead, I've got some answers you can use:
Short and sweet, and will definitely get your point forward: You want reasoning, you're not going to flame back, you know what you're doing. If they actually listen to you (although they probably don't), they may think a bit.
"Yeah, you think so and I don't mind, but I think it doesn't and I have the full rights to think something else than you. I want to know WHY you think it sucks."
It's more detailed, you're already commenting on how people can have their opinions. But it may not get you anywhere, if the other person decides to answer with "Yeah, I can think it sucks, too."
"Did somebody just say something? Nah, it was probably just the wind."
Sarcasm. Gets it across that you're still there, but don't listen to flames. At least it might get some flamers to shut up.
"What do you think will happen if you drown me in 'Pokémon sucks' and flames? It will just make Pokémon haters look bad in the eyes of passing Pokémon fans. I won't think Pokémon sucks just because you say it."
The honest version of the above. Clearer, if you think the person who's flaming you won't get the point of the sarcastic one. But the sarcastic one is sharper and makes you look cool, so otherwise I recommend that.
But the best answer will always be something coming from yourself, something you say with your own words and feelings. I recommend that over my answers anyday.
Yay, someone's going to debate with me. What do I do then?
Debate, don't give up, and use your own reasoning, thought and logic. You can borrow from my Anti-anti-Pokémon for Pokémon haters section (but not copy and paste), but I recommend that you use your own logic, whether it's similar to mine or not.
Page last modified August 12 2016 at 22:34 GMT