Do debates really make us better?

[yzb25]

And, as an extension of the original question, does challenging people or bringing their ideas into contention actually make themselves and the world better? This is, to a certain degree, connected to that post Psyduck made about Islam - that post kind of reminded me of this thought. However, I wanted this to be a separate thread. I wanted this question and my ideas to be more general than that.

This thread will be part-ramble, part-organized and likely long. So I recommend just leaving if you're impatient.

Anyway, in regards to the original question, the presumed answer, and the answer I would have once given is "Of course! It stimulates thought! It broadens your mind! Your views become stronger and better!". I used to strongly believe that. In fact, allow me to share an anecdote on past me.

My friendship circle in Secondary School was far sharper, far deeper, and simply far more intelligent than me. They repeatedly crushed me and my ideas. Gruelingly, I grew stronger. I got better at defending against different points of view, working people into thought traps, and so on and so forth.

My "skill" made me feel big. And so I treated others as my friendship circle had treated me. It was more than the opinions and ideas themselves. It was about how to destroy people. Whether it was intimidating them with dubious statistics, or over-simplifying your reasoning to make your argument look more resolute and more unquestionable. It sounds twisted, but I took pleasure in getting wrapped up in an opinionated persona, and forcing someone to accept my point of view, only to say I had changed my mind the following day and then drag them back to their old point of view. As you can imagine, I wasn't a very pleasant person to discuss things with :P.

"Christ!" you may think, "that is NOT what a debate has to be! At all!". Well, let's have a moment of honesty here. Who engages in a debate to lose? Obviously, you think you're right so you want to make sure your "correct" view wins. It may sound over-the-top, but you are really just a more insidious version of what I was when you debate - unaware of your own self-righteousness. If you really wanted an exchange of ideas, you'd simply exchange ideas. If you really wanted something thought stimulating, you'd have a thought stimulating discussion without the clash of egos and opinions. And if you wanted a productive solution to a problem, god knows you wouldn't do it through a debate.

Debates simply seem like, at best, a dodgy way of possibly achieving good thoughts if both sides are extremely cooperative and tolerant to the point where it's basically just a discussion and, at worst, a disgusting attack of other's views to homogenize the pool of ideas to your liking. <- Indeed, that is probably the worst thing about debates - Viewpoints converge on eachother as we all drag eachother towards eachother like some kind of strange gravity, and we end up with a political left and political right that still haven't resolved their issues in 100s of years. You kill idea diversity and proper reasoning with such debate-based thinking.

"But what if, through debate, I make people see my awesome, completely infallible opinion on this matter?" - I think this is where Psyduck really comes into this. Well done, you bombarded him with superior arguments and reduced him to shit. Here's your cookie, but now what? Do you think you really had a long term impact on him? Okay, so maybe he actually did wade through all the stuff you said, and has changed his mind about muslims. Do you think he's actually any better as a person? If he hears more shit about muslims for the next 2 weeks, he'll return to his old views. Your argument is nothing more than a passing breeze grazing his mind because ultimately, though he got a little bit of knowledge and our brains were stimulated a little, it was nothing compared to all the junk that you and him are bombarded with in the rest of the day. The intellectual stimulation of the conversation was simply marginal in relation to ordinary life.

People didn't always debate - or at least that's what it seems to me. Instead, we exchanged ideas in written form, theory-crafted with one-another out loud live, or thought about it independently - you know, how good ideas are actually developed. It was the dawn of the printing press, the general media, and slimy politicians that brought this "debate" into existence. Before that, scholars or mere thinkers would exchange information, then follow a logic chain to determine the best course of action. No more or no less.

So, where am I going with this? I guess what I really want to do is to just give a word of advice, based off of my experiences of debating - try to abstain from debates, changing someone's stupid opinion, or so on and so forth. That's unproductive. Instead, share what little you know, share what contradictions you've noticed, and return to the background. That's the best you can do, if you're really interested in doing what's best. That way, they have a chance of getting smarter and becoming an actual follower of the truth, whatever that is, and regardless of if we have reached it.

Would be interested to hear what anyone else has to say, if they bother to read lol.

yzb25's list of fuck-ups

This is the inevitable price he must pay for rambling about debates being bad on a forum brought together by a game about debating. Here yzb25 shall leave all his fuck-ups as they are realized live. If you wish to point out one of the many flaws in his terrible post, he implores you to skim through this list.

1) He wasn't clear about what he means by a debate: He defines a debate as different sides trying to convince one another of a certain point of view, using reasoning or evidence.

2) He wasn't clear about his conclusion: He's saying we should just try to say facts and their sources or solid flaws in reasoning rather than trying to convince one another of our ideas.

3) He is pointing out supposed disadvantages to debates, and trying to show how supposedly weak debates actually are for making things better.

List expected to grow.

[Slaol]

Your opinion is wrong. Debates make us better as individuals and a whole. This is never untrue.

[yzb25]

Your opinion is wrong. Debates make us better as individuals and a whole. This is never untrue.

You could NOT have read it in that time XD. I know I have no control over what people do or say, but I'd appreciate it if you read the thread first or just left xD

[Slaol]

You could NOT have read it in that time XD. I know I have no control over what people do or say, but I'd appreciate it if you read the thread first or just left xD

You don't know how fast I read sir.

[SuperJack]

I feel that other people will say what I would say. So I'm not going to get involved and just watch

[Calix]

So your argument is that debates help polarise the opinions on both sides? I think that result has more to do with the way that people approach different views by mocking or belittling them. If you're polite about it, then this doesn't happen as often.

If someone voices their thoughts, I think you're allowed to counter them with evidence so that they get the chance to self-reflect. Simply going 'you're intolerant/ racist/ sexist/ negative word' does not constitute a helpful response that will lead to long-lasting persuasion.

I get the need to rant, but I don't think many people will take this on-board despite your arguments. As someone who belittles people myself, I am doubtful that many will pass up the opportunity to feel superior by heaping scorn on someone else. inb4 someone gets offended over this post and accuses me of projecting.

[Slaol]

I get the need to rant, but I don't think many people will take this on-board despite your arguments. As someone who belittles people myself, I am doubtful that many will pass up the opportunity to feel superior by heaping scorn on someone else.

Don't tell me or my friends what they are gonna do you presumably english fool.

[SuperJack]

Don't tell me or my friends what they are gonna do you presumably english fool.

Slaol. Remember what I asked you?

[Slaol]

Slaol. Remember what I asked you?

The question you didn't explain, sure.

[yzb25]

So your argument is that debates help polarise the opinions on both sides? I think that result has more to do with the way that people approach different views by mocking or belittling them. If you're polite about it, then this doesn't happen as often.

If someone voices their thoughts, I think you're allowed to counter them with evidence so that they get the chance to self-reflect. Simply going 'you're intolerant/ racist/ sexist/ negative word' does not constitute a helpful response that will lead to long-lasting persuasion.

I get the need to rant, but I don't think many people will take this on-board despite your arguments. As someone who belittles people myself, I am doubtful that many will pass up the opportunity to feel superior by heaping scorn on someone else. inb4 someone gets offended over this post and accuses me of projecting.

Triggered. Stop projecting your phallic readings onto my innocent mind.

In all seriousness, I have rapidly realized now I have made this post that I should have given a more formal definition of what I mean by "debate".

Debate: Two people who are attempting to convince one another of their views with reasoning and evidence.

This isn't about politeness. This is about the mindset with which we approach a different point of view - we want to pull it towards us, esp. if we see that point of view as inherently wrong or dangerous. A far more productive mindset is just to say raw facts and where you found them, point out logical errors, and then retreat again.

I apologize for seeming unfocused or ranty. I do have a focused point, but alas the post is in the form of a blurt. I guess this is the price I must pay for a poophead post, but hopefully my meaning can still be derived xD.

Anyway yes, polarization is one issue with debates - and it can't be stopped by being polite. Anyway, I'm pretty sure I did raise other issues with the nature of the debate. By virture of the fact there are two people with two views who are trying to pull one another towards eachother, limitations and flaws arise.

[DarknessB]

I feel that other people will say what I would say. So I'm not going to get involved and just watch

I, for one, believe that SuperJack is great. See, I'm saying what he would say.

[Calix]

Triggered. Stop projecting your phallic readings onto my innocent mind.

In all seriousness, I have rapidly realized now I have made this post that I should have given a more formal definition of what I mean by "debate".

Debate: Two people who are attempting to convince one another of their views with reasoning and evidence.

This isn't about politeness. This is about the mindset with which we approach a different point of view - we want to pull it towards us, esp. if we see that point of view as inherently wrong or dangerous. A far more productive mindset is just to say raw facts and where you found them, point out logical errors, and then retreat again.

I apologize for seeming unfocused or ranty. I do have a focused point, but alas the post is in the form of a blurt. I guess this is the price I must pay for a poophead post, but hopefully my meaning can still be derived xD.

Anyway yes, polarization is one issue with debates - and it can't be stopped by being polite. Anyway, I'm pretty sure I did raise other issues with the nature of the debate. By virture of the fact there are two people with two views who are trying to pull one another towards eachother, limitations and flaws arise.

Well yeah, nobody really appreciates having their viewpoint challenged as they have little to compare their reality to, but being judgmental is how people operate. We're inherently suspicious of the unfamiliar because being too trusting would have gotten you killed in the evolutionary adaptive stage, etc etc etc. Hence why you have prejudices and stereotypes in the first place.

Debates are fine in the early stages when you're presenting a carefully-thought-out case for why you think the way you do. Once the main points are out of the way, it goes to hell in a hand-basket pretty quickly as you're reduced to arguing over abstract ideas/ semantics.

I agree with your main point, which is evident in your original post. I just wanted to comment on it.

[yzb25]

Well yeah, nobody really appreciates having their viewpoint challenged as they have little to compare their reality to, but being judgmental is how people operate. We're inherently suspicious of the unfamiliar because being too trusting would have gotten you killed in the evolutionary adaptive stage, etc etc etc. Hence why you have prejudices and stereotypes in the first place.

Debates are fine in the early stages when you're presenting a carefully-thought-out case for why you think the way you do. Once the main points are out of the way, it goes to hell in a hand-basket pretty quickly as you're reduced to arguing over abstract ideas/ semantics.

I agree with your main point, which is evident in your original post. I just wanted to comment on it.

Fair enough. =3

[DarknessB]

Look, here's the issue with "debates" -- if you are coming into the debate without an open mind and your goal is to convince the other side you are correct, you aren't going to get much out of it. It's going to be bunch of silly pandering like the Presidential Debates. If we're instead talking more about philosophical discussions where people don't have a fully informed opinion about an issue and are going to walk through the considerations together instead, it might be a more civil environment where people take something out of the discussion that they didn't previously have. Most debate just turn into a bunch of yelling and entrenching oneself into one's current viewpoints. Great for creating long threads and getting people worked up, but not so great in terms of bringing people together or opening up their viewpoints.

[Calix]

Look, here's the issue with "debates" -- if you are coming into the debate without an open mind and your goal is to convince the other side you are correct, you aren't going to get much out of it. It's going to be bunch of silly pandering like the Presidential Debates. If we're instead talking more about philosophical discussions where people don't have a fully informed opinion about an issue and are going to walk through the considerations together instead, it might be a more civil environment where people take something out of the discussion that they didn't previously have. Most debate just turn into a bunch of yelling and entrenching oneself into one's current viewpoints. Great for creating long threads and getting people worked up, but not so great in terms of bringing people together or opening up their viewpoints.

There is one plus side to those sorts of debates though...they're entertaining 8-)

My suggestion would be to have debates between people who don't have views on the opposite side of the spectrum (e.g., a 'debate' between a Communist and a Neo-Nazi doesn't deserve the label). It seems like debates would be the most effective when your opponent has similar views to you as you can work through the minor kinks in your logic that way. Since both of them agree about the main points, it's less likely to be seen as a personal attack on their character.

Just my two cents, of course.

[DarknessB]

There is one plus side to those sorts of debates though...they're entertaining 8-)

My suggestion would be to have debates between people who don't have views on the opposite side of the spectrum (e.g., a 'debate' between a Communist and a Neo-Nazi doesn't deserve the label). It seems like debates would be the most effective when your opponent has similar views to you as you can work through the minor kinks in your logic that way. Since both of them agree about the main points, it's less likely to be seen as a personal attack on their character.

Just my two cents, of course.

They can be entertaining for sure, especially if the participants are witty and are having fun instead of just screaming at each other. Yeah, the opposite sides debates don't tend to be a good formula because there are rarely areas of consensus, especially if we're talking polar opposites on an issue. I really doubt that a hardcore pro-life and hardcore pro-choice person are going to change their beliefs about abortion merely because they are debating each other. In contrast, if you generally agree on what needs to be done and the issue is figuring out how to do it or working out the nuances involved, it might be a more informative / productive experience for everyone involved.

[Slaol]

I for one do not agree with any point stated so far.

[DarknessB]

I for one do not agree with any point stated so far.

I agree that you do not agree with any point stated so far. By definition, don't you have to agree with this point?

[Slaol]

I agree that you do not agree with any point stated so far. By definition, don't you have to agree with this point?

I disagree with your agreeing with me. So no

[DarknessB]

I disagree with your agreeing with me. So no

[Slaol]

No.

[Yukitaka Oni]

Debate me us better through....blood :V....

[Frog]

I definitely read this whole post in under a minute, like Slaol.

Debate is good because the strong will prevails. And only the strongest should survive. I agree with you that debate should be used as a means of 'population control'.

[Darkcrusader]

Ofc, debates can help us understand new shit, not to mention that it gives us a small window on the opposition's worldview, even if we may or may not agree on it.
Just like ass fingering and Westboro Baptist Church.