My least favorite debates are regarding history. For example, whether or not the holocaust happened, or what the fate of Roanoke colony was. It is not because I do not like history either. I feel these debates have a different core nature. Too much speculation, and the debates usually end up being a battle over who has better evidence. Whereas if I were to debate philosophy or whether something should be legal, a source battle can be avoided.
Anyways, what are your least favorite debate categoryh.
Thumbs up from:
By
admin |
Feb 23 2015 10:57 AM Blackflag:
My least favorite is people.
I don't care much for celebs and things.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag:
My least favourite is economics, closely followed by war history type ones, the majority of which I find to be based mainly on conjecture.
nzlockie:
Conjecture is in all subjects. There's just more of it in history and economics.
Economics is a social science based on speculation, and you have to argue as if you have a definite answer.
The same can be said for religion debates though.
Blackflag:
Hey, you asked, I answered.
Naturally most debates involve conjecture. What I mean is that I find War debates to involve a tremendous amount of conjecture, considering that there are so many human variables involved.
I'm also not particularly interested in discussing wars as if they were sports matches - which is what I find tends to happen a lot on the internet.
I guess you could could say that they are "based on a level of conjecture that I find uninteresting."
I don't like economics because I don't really care about money or maths and I find discussing it boring. (Sorry JMK)
nzlockie:
I was agreeing with you if that was not clear.