So, with all the discussion going around, I thought it would be interesting to discuss well... how we like to discuss things .

What do I mean by methods of debate or discussion? I mean what preferences, both in content and stylistically, do you as individuals have when engaging in the presentation of and response to ideas that is a discussion (And if you have your reasons, why)?

For example, I prefer having key words clearly defined before any of the discussion starts to reduce confusion and to allow for a more precise debate though the use of definitions. If a word's meaning is "common sense," then to me that means all the more ease in defining it.

I'll throw in some of my other preferences later, but for now what do you folks like to see in a discussion?

Dictionary definitions should be used. In a recent discussion Juntalis took the liberty of redefining words to his favour, it was quite annoying. I imagine it is very easy to win logical arguments by redefining words then forcing your opponent into logical fallacies.

I prefer debates in which people respect eachother and eachothers opinions, also debates in which insults and sarcasm are kept to a minimum. A couple other things I prefer is when the people engaged In a debate Is to not look at a few rare cases as opposed to the affected party as a whole, such as "I smoke pot and I have a medical reason to do it". Lastly I would prefer if there were more of a personal input besides the standard Google and link every single thing practice that is oftenly used, it turns the debate more into someone repeatedly quoting Google results more than an exchange of opinions.

My favorite debates are the ones that require a person to use their brain instead of the internet. When a person thinks for them self depending on the subject at hand, it makes that debate better because you have two or more people that are educated in that subject. If a person just starts to google answers, then he/she really has no clue about the subject and they just make ignorant comments to make themselves seem smarter. I find that arguing in a subject that you have absolutely no clue as to what is going on, is just flat out stupid. If you do not know the material or the argument that is going on, there is no reason for you to make nonsense input. In my opinion, the best part of the debate is the end, whether you won or lost one of the parties learned something new, and if you did win the debate you have a feeling of accomplishment.

Being amicable to other people's opinions makes a nice debate. However, not many people on this site seem to understand how discussions work (e.g. getting carried away, taking things personally, etc.)
Like dannyrug stated, people should only have inputs in debates if they're fairly confident that they can contribute something relevant and productive.

I am fine with condescending remarks and talking down to people during debates, but only if the people doing it know what they're talking about.

For example, I will not allow a 12 year old creationist to act superior to me in an argument about Darwinian evolution and it's accuracies/mistakes.

Otherwise yeah, respect for one another and a calm attitude blah blah. Basically what the people above me said.

Why should people have to rely on their own knowledge? The beauty of this age is that we don't have to rely on wishy washy memory.

It actually makes me sad when I have to correct someone on something basic that the could have googled and found out...

Super late reply but... (Had to fix a laptop).

I agree with most of you folks that having prior knowledge in a discussion is desirable. Because joining in a discussion with no prior knowledge implies that some individual became educated in the topic for the sole sake of joining the discussion, and that seems somewhat iffy to me. I also agree with Cow that it is good practice to check one's sources when possible before presenting them (Still prefer a little bit of prior interest though).

Also Cow, I have a different opinion than yours in terms of definitions. But that just might be me misinterpreting your words. If you suggest the use of dictionary definitions, then what do you say makes a definition a dictionary definition? In particular, what differentiates a dictionary definition from a non-dictionary definition? And, seeing as how there are multiple dictionaries in the world, what makes one dictionary definition more suitable than another dictionary definition of the same word? (Assuming that multiple dictionaries containing a certain word implies multiple dictionary definitions of the same word. Which it may not, again, I think I may be misinterpreting your words).

As a side note, I absolutely agree with your last statement. Having the ability to control one's words means having the ability to control one's ability to express themselves.

I cannot imagine that two dictionaries would have significantly different definitions of words. Most words in question are actually topic specific jargon that have specific meaning attached to them that are not easily modified and are not subject to differences across dictionaries. For example when discussing the nature of time, the term 'finite' has a very definite and specific meaning.

I can see why you have that view, it is very rational and in general true. But still, presenting your view, that you "cannot imagine that two dictionaries would have significantly different definitions" does not imply that no two dictionaries have significantly different definitions.

I made a mistake in not stating why I asked those two questions. I am interested in implementing your system of only using dictionary definitions. In order for me to do that, I feel like I only need to know two things. One: "What differentiates a dictionary definition from a non-dictionary definition?" And assuming that my answer to question one is the same as yours, "Two: What makes one dictionary definition more suitable than another dictionary definition of the same word?" The first question seems trivial, however I do not believe there is any way to answer it such that your system for choosing definitions can be implemented. Rather, the way I would answer the first question makes your system impossible to implement - due to the problem posed by the second question.

Also, you might be wondering why I'm being so wishy-washy. That is, I have my own answer to the first question, so why am I not just presenting it and going from there? If I did that, then I would be "[taking] the liberty of redefining words to [my] favour" as you say. So such a presentation would only be a pointless show of my ability or lack thereof to "win logical arguments by redefining words then forcing your opponent into logical fallacies." Hence, I wait for you to present your own answer to the first question or definition for what is a dictionary definition.