SWORDF1SH said:
vivster said:
First of all, you won't change the opinion of the other side. If both are reasonable people they both made an educated choice and you won't enlighten them with points that they already know and already decided if they're worth it or not.
Second, better games is highly subjective and a high metacritic score is absolutely no argument to buy a game or a console. Both sides will be arguing that they have better games. And no one will convince them otherwise because it's preference. One console will have 10 shooters that all got 100 on metacritic while the other console has just one RPG that has 85. Person 1 will choose console B because he doesn't care about shooters but likes RPGs. Did he make the right choice? Yes. Person 2 will get console A because he likes shooters. Did he make the right choice? Yes.
Now you tell me which is the better console when both reasonable people made the right choice.
|
Not sure if you get what this is about. It's not trying to get the other side to some to theire side. The put there case why their choice is better and the same with the other side. Sometime they might have to concede on sub-debates if the other puts a better case across sometime they might meet in the middle.
The whole point of this is for us on the outside see 2 people debate it out and we get to make the descision at the end of who but a better case across.
My Metacritic point was just an example of many ways a debate could go if the debate turned to games. I was just using it theoretically.
|
A topic that only concerns each one of the debaters separately is not a valid debate topic. It's a debate without counter arguments, no chance to attack the opposition. Every point brought by each of the debaters will be irrefutable because each argument will only account to the person's preference.
The only thing this will be is 2 lists of product features with arbitrary points that each debater will put a different weight on.
Also, who will decide which one made the "better" points?
