08-16-2004, 05:07 AM
I've been having a heated discussion about cars in different thread and I just stepped back for a moment and asked myself if I was inciting a flame war or just having a good healthy argument.
The irony of that debate is that I find myself defending one person that I typically don't care for against someone that I typically agree with.
So what is the difference between a Flame War and a Debate?
For one, I enjoy debates. They are typically supported with facts and have opinions acknowledged for what they are. I believe flame wars are more often when one opinion goes up against another opinion without any support and just starts name calling.
I believe that if forums were all about agreeing with each other on everything that it would be a pretty boring place. At the same time, if all anyone did was call each other names I wouldn't want to be here either.
What do other people think about the differences and/or merits of debate vs. flame war?
The irony of that debate is that I find myself defending one person that I typically don't care for against someone that I typically agree with.
So what is the difference between a Flame War and a Debate?
For one, I enjoy debates. They are typically supported with facts and have opinions acknowledged for what they are. I believe flame wars are more often when one opinion goes up against another opinion without any support and just starts name calling.
I believe that if forums were all about agreeing with each other on everything that it would be a pretty boring place. At the same time, if all anyone did was call each other names I wouldn't want to be here either.
What do other people think about the differences and/or merits of debate vs. flame war?
Gullible isn't in the dictionary.