| Chula Vista |
08-17-2017 04:46 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
(Post 1865449)
That's fine, but this is a discussion forum so maybe you came to the wrong place. Might I recommend Facebook?
|
See, this is classic. You have great debates with folks that fit within your acceptable radius of ideology, where you all are just debating the subtleties of an issue.
I, on the other hand are an outlier in your mind. My views and ideologies are so far removed from yours that you constantly resort to sarcasm, condescension, and veiled insults in your retorts.
You've made it clear hundreds of times that you feel morally superior to me. Intellectually superior to me. You deal from nuanced internet and school research and I just resort to my gut. You are high brow so I must be low. I'm old and out of touch and you are the hipster.
So what's the point for me? The Facebook retort above is classic you. A veiled insult from a smug person with lots of textbook and internet learnings but very little, in comparison, real world experience.
And you might want to learn the difference between debate and discussion.
I'll patiently await your next "classic you" response. Better yet, don't bother. In your mind you've already won every debate, even before you enter it.
Quote:
Simply stated, the object of any true debate is to win; to achieve victory for your side and inflict defeat on the other. Debate is a zero-sum game: In order for you to win, your opponent has to lose. Debate has that in common with war. As a result, debate is deeply anti-intellectual.
That’s not to say that being a good debater doesn’t require a high degree of intelligence, knowledge, and skill. But so does being a good military commander. A good commander will probe her enemy’s weakest point and exploit it to the max. At the same time she will try to conceal and distract from her own weaknesses.
Likewise, a good debater, because the object of debate is victory by any means short of violence, will zero in on her opponent’s weakest argument, his most outrageous comment or slip of the tongue, and make it the centerpiece of a relentless attack in the hopes of hammering him to submission or making him look ridiculous in the eyes of any spectators. She will twist subtle argument into absurdity. Ad hominem, the straw man, and name-calling may be logical fallacies, but they’re all part of the debater’s arsenal, as are distraction and attributing false statements to an opponent. The goal is not truth-seeking, the goal is to win. At the same time, she will conceal the flaws in her own argument and make her position appear stronger than it really is. Anyone who doesn’t do such things is a bad debater.
|
Quote:
Discussion, not debate, is a pathway to intellectual growth. That’s because when we’re alone or talk only to those we agree with it’s hard to see where we’re right or wrong. In fact it’s very easy to delude ourselves into thinking we’re right all the time. So discussion doesn’t mean talking in an echo chamber. Rather, it’s essential to try to see ourselves as objectively as we can. Talking openly to those we disagree with is a good way to do that. But of course it’s hard.
Debate is easier because you never level criticism at your own argument. In a good discussion you have to, at least tacitly. Also, in an ideal discussion you tackle your strongest challenger’s best arguments; again the opposite of debate. You enter wanting to understand the other side, coming not with prepared criticisms and zingers but with honest questions.
Because our default mode tends to be defensive, a good discussion means having to put some energy into the attitude that “We may both be wrong.” You don’t exactly ignore your challenger’s weaknesses. You point them out as part of the learning process, but you also have to accept that her points may not be as weak, nor yours as strong, as you thought.
A good discussion reveals the weaknesses of your argument, to yourself and to the other discussant. To correct an error you first have to be made aware of it and second to admit it. But to make yourself vulnerable by such an admission requires trusting that your challenger won’t hammer you over the head with it. As discourse turns to debate, that kind of trust vanishes.
|
|
