Fervent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2020
- 6,721
- 2,910
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
From this I'm gathering that you believe debate somehow dehumanizes the opposite sides, I would argue such an approach is exactly the sort of abuse I'm speaking to rather than a proper use of debate. Though this seems to be a semantic issue, since I am using all opposing dialogue in which two contradictory ideas are pitted against each other as debate. Such debates don't necessarily imply thinking less of your partner, nor is it necessarily adversarial. In fact I've been in a number of congenial debates in which there is much respect for one another but a mutual disagreement on point topics. And these debates aren't necessarily about winning or losing, perhaps not even finding a mediating position, but about discovering truth. Philosophy books were often written as dialogues because in debate there is a power that researching on one's own cannot fully establish and a debate can bring out things that weren't otherwise seen.I hear you are saying, "Just because some people abuse the use of the debate does not mean debate is necessarily bad." To that point I would only say if you can demonstrate that it is not at the point that one does change their mind if this changes things from a difference of debate to discussion? More to the point, I would say at the point one changes their mind it goes from debate to discussion. The notable thing here is a sense of empathy for your fellow dialoguies. I don't say to change one's mind afterwards is a bad thing, in fact it is a good thing and as much an act of repentance of sorts, but I would only ask WHY you cannot do that in the moment? That is where I would argue there are certain sentiments and biases and mechanisms in the mind held before the fact of a changing of the mind. I would illustrate this as it is written by Paul, 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 "Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as rI have been fully known. 13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love." and in so saying, isn't Paul saying to hold love in the highest esteem and not discourse as to "win" the argument, and to not have that mindset, but rather to look to your brother in love and not look at your brother as an argument piece?
Spur of the moment revelations are rare, partly this is because of human biases but it's also partly because after the fact the whole debate can be taken in in a way that participating doesn't necessarily provide.
All of that said, there's also an enjoyment aspect of it when a debate is congenial they can be pleasant exchanges rather than heated contests. Though even heated contests can be profitable when there are serious issues to be hashed out. Let's not forget Paul argued with both James and Peter, going so far with Peter as to write "I opposed him to his face." There's a time and a place for debate, though I would agree with a sentiment that often we are too quick to argue rather than to listen.
Upvote
0