Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Do you believe in character?
I'm going to take @quatona's legitimately meticulous point and change "debate" to "argument". I don't really dig the point of debates in most cases.
The latter. And he's right on point here, I think: think of how many people who at least implicitly consider themselves to be good but really are incapable of doing bad. To earn the first you have to be capable of the second.
I prefer to kill them with kindness/grace as the word says it is pouring hot coals on their head. This is not a bad thing for them.And maybe this reflects differing conceptions of what constitutes dignity, and that's totally part of my point. This also goes hand-in-hand with determining what constitutes negative behavior.
So if I'm debating with someone who says my arguments are stupid, retarded, I'm full of it, or whatever, that violates ethics in the basic Kantian/golden rule sense of treating others in ways you wouldn't want to be treated. It's interesting that what spawned this thread was a debate on Youtube where someone opened with pretty much the labels I've referred to, and after me doing my shrink thing and challenging her thinking, she finally said, basically, "I have had people call me bad things all the time," implying that this justified her using similar negative language in her argument -- which actually is the idea of do unto others as has been done unto you rather than the other way around.
Well, some people are down with this type of inflammatory rhetoric and are okay with having people throw it their way. That makes it ethical for them to use these terms, but not ethical for me to continue to debate with them. But I seriously doubt they really don't mind people using these superfluous inflammatory comments. And we have to consider the Kantian universality ideal: if everyone were to debate in ways that involved inflammatory rhetoric (which as I argued above in my response to Chesterton is fallacious by itself, regardless of ethical considerations), what would this world look like? To me it would look like a world where people are responding from their limbic brains, which would invite defensiveness in other people, making the goal of argumentation (helping people see the truth) more pointless.
On a deeper level, I think a person who uses these superfluous inflammatory bits of rhetoric in their argument (full of it, stupid, etc.) have characters that aren't as refined or advanced as people who don't, and that's what I mean when I say I'm reinforcing negative behavior by continuing to debate with them when they're throwing down this rhetoric. By continuing to debate with them, I'm in a sense giving them the impression (if not downright condoning) their use of inflammatory rhetoric.
Here's something pretty nasty and in my view hard for most people to see.
Person A and B get into a debate. As they continue the debate, A begins debating more aggressively, throwing down inflammatory rhetoric (e.g., such-and-such is nonsense, crap, stupid, dumb, "man you're full of it," etc.) while the content of his argument is still worth debating. Person B has two choices: he can continue to debate and thereby give up a bit of his dignity by responding to person A's superfluous jabs, or he can stop debating as a matter of dignity and/or appeals to argumentative ethics.
Problems happen in both cases: in the first case (where B continues debating with the ever-growing inflammatory A) B sacrifices a bit of his dignity and even reputation by continuing; he even can throw stuff back at A, in which case the debate becomes more and more pointless given that people are less likely to consider viewpoints seriously when they perceive themselves as attacked.
In the second case, where B says he won't continue debating as a matter of dignity and/or ethics, it's extremely easy for A, who usually doesn't have even an awaerness of the unethical argumentative nature of his rhetorical jabs, to think he's won -- or at least that others viewing the debate to think A won -- simply because B quit.
So we're left with the options of reinforcing negative behavior by people like A when we debate with them, or giving the impression that we have no response.
Thoughts?
Let me first give you my understanding of a "debate" (as opposed to a "discussion"):
While a discussion is a cooperative game ("let´s share ideas, and reason together in order to enhance our understanding"), a debate is solely about winning (and "winning" means persuading an actual or imaginary audience of you being right). It is not about who has the better character, it is not about being fair, it is not about insight - it´s all about winning, at all costs. There aren´t many rules, and even using fallacies and rhethorics (including ad hominems and such) isn´t against the rules (for some, employing these devices is even what makes you a great debater).
Look, when I am on the badminton court I have agreed that it´s about winning. It´s not about who´s the better player. If I notice weaknesses of my opponent (maybe injuries even) I will exploit them. That´s the very point of a competitive game. This includes clenching my fist in order to show my determination and intimidate him, this includes debating a point even though I know the umpire´s decision against me was correct. It includes wasting time when I need to recollect. It´s about winning, and if necessary this means winning "ugly".
How´s that different from what I pictured a debate as, and, more importantly, how would picking this definition affect the actual points I made? (Apart from the fact that from the context I wasn´t under the impression that Received talked about formal debates in public meetings or legislative assemblies.)I don't think I understand debate or badminton the same way you do.If you look at various definitions of "debate," I think you'll find it to be much less cut-throat than you propose. For example, Oxford:
1. A formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote
I agree with this observation and analysis.
I do understand that this may be perceived as problematic in various ways - I just don´t understand what exactly the problem is you want to point out.
I mean, if I notice upfront that the other person plays in a way I don´t like (and which suggests to me that it will get even worse) - why even start playing?
Now, these terms certainly indicate the feeling that I am 1. superiour, 2. the objective judge, and 3. that it should be my task to better the other person.
I´m not sure I want to go there, in the first place. These aren´t my children, or something.
And since we are talking "debate" here, I fail to see how these concerns have a place here, anyway (see above).
Look, when I am on the badminton court I have agreed that it´s about winning. It´s not about who´s the better player. If I notice weaknesses of my opponent (maybe injuries even) I will exploit them. That´s the very point of a competitive game. This includes clenching my fist in order to show my determination and intimidate him, this includes debating a point even though I know the umpire´s decision against me was correct. It includes wasting time when I need to recollect. It´s about winning, and if necessary this means winning "ugly".
Anyway, if you want to bring character into the play - I think all I can do is watch my own character (and typically, that´s hard enough.).
I have a couple of options (I can point out the irrelevancy of the "superfluous" rethorics, I can simply ignore those parts, and I also have the option of saying "Thanks for the game so far, but, sorry, I don´t like the way you play it." and go away.)
I don´t think it should be my concern what the other person takes home from my response (this is unpredictable, anyways - I am not even sure that leaving always means "reinforcement"; just as likely it can cause the other person frustration.). I like to think that watching my own integrity and values is all and the best I can do.
(And again: from a "meta-argumentative" ethics pov, I personally feel that only insane idiots are willing to engage in a debate, in the first place.)
Because the argument speaks for itself, meaning any label which functions as a judgment about the argument is superfluous; and because labeling in inflammatory ways begs the question because it assumes the conclusion is true by the label being used.
Finasteride, but I'm worried about the tiny fraction of folks who have 5a-reductase problems, causing DHT to be all messy. Oh wait, wrong forum.
I'm not being clear: when I speak about making the leap from "wrong" to inflammatory rhetoric, I'm pointing out how you seemed to equate calling an argument "wrong" (which I can totally deal with given the lack of inflammatory rhetoric, even though it begs the question) with it being "stupid", "retarded", etc.
Let the argument tell the person they're wrong, because pointing out that something is "wrong" begs the question. However, most importantly, saying someone is "wrong" is far from engaging in inflammatory rhetoric, which this thread is all about. There's nothing unethical about saying someone is "wrong", only something fallacious.
Let me first give you my understanding of a "debate" (as opposed to a "discussion"):
While a discussion is a cooperative game ("let´s share ideas, and reason together in order to enhance our understanding"), a debate is solely about winning (and "winning" means persuading an actual or imaginary audience of you being right).
It is not about who has the better character, it is not about being fair, it is not about insight - it´s all about winning, at all costs. There aren´t many rules, and even using fallacies and rhethorics (including ad hominems and such) isn´t against the rules (for some, employing these devices is even what makes you a great debater).
So, if you are concerned about the effects of your behaviour, the first question, for me, would be: Do I want to play this game, at all?
For me, the answer is no. If, however, you agree with playing that game, don´t complain if it runs you into predictable issues.
Second: The topics discussed here do not lend themselves to debate, imo. This is about deeply held beliefs that people hold for a reason. These beliefs aren´t simply disposable. Engaging in competitive post-hoc rationalizations therefore means: You might not only lose an argument, you might lose the ground you stand on. So a debate isn´t the enjoyable competitive game that it pretends to be. To exaggerate a little: it can be life-threatening. So people will use teeth and claws, and their killer instincts will come out as a means of defense.
Now, these terms certainly indicate the feeling that I am 1. superiour, 2. the objective judge, and 3. that it should be my task to better the other person.
I´m not sure I want to go there, in the first place. These aren´t my children, or something.
And since we are talking "debate" here, I fail to see how these concerns have a place here, anyway (see above).
Look, when I am on the badminton court I have agreed that it´s about winning. It´s not about who´s the better player. If I notice weaknesses of my opponent (maybe injuries even) I will exploit them. That´s the very point of a competitive game. This includes clenching my fist in order to show my determination and intimidate him, this includes debating a point even though I know the umpire´s decision against me was correct. It includes wasting time when I need to recollect. It´s about winning, and if necessary this means winning "ugly".
Anyway, if you want to bring character into the play - I think all I can do is watch my own character (and typically, that´s hard enough.).
I have a couple of options (I can point out the irrelevancy of the "superfluous" rethorics, I can simply ignore those parts, and I also have the option of saying "Thanks for the game so far, but, sorry, I don´t like the way you play it." and go away.)
I don´t think it should be my concern what the other person takes home from my response (this is unpredictable, anyways - I am not even sure that leaving always means "reinforcement"; just as likely it can cause the other person frustration.). I like to think that watching my own integrity and values is all and the best I can do.
(And again: from a "meta-argumentative" ethics pov, I personally feel that only insane idiots are willing to engage in a debate, in the first place.)
I am a little confused, Received.I'm slow in responding because I read this post and thought, "hm, I pretty much agree with all of it, so..."
My problem -- the unavoidable one -- is debating with people who seem or are sincere and, well, nice at the beginning, and then slowly suck you in by gradually throwing in inflammatory rhetoric.
Then I'm at a tough place, given that these discussions are usually public (online), because I can either go on a metaargumentative point and pay attention to the rules that are going on here, which will be seen usually as stalling or at most irrelevant, or just stop responding and give the person the impression that their perspective is correct.
Well, I think the image other people have of us -- and in a public setting what other people who are watching our discussion have of us -- is irrelevant. i'm okay with letting people form whatever opinion they want of me -- if I can't stop it without it just not being worth it. And apropos the reinforcement bit, I think it's sort of my obligation to not reinforce behavior that's just going to cause a pain in the rear for other people.
Yes. Not sure why you started this paragraph with a "but".But when someone offers to discuss, to tell you a thought, to share an idea, it's the same as if someone offers to play you a song, or give you a cupcake. You will, in fact, assess whether the idea, or the song, or the cupcake is good or bad. That's just part of how humans react to external stimuli.
Because you are out to kill someone?I agree it can be life-threatening. But isn't that more reason to compete, rather than less?
For believing I have my own opinion none of these terms are needed.No, those terms don't indicate the feeling that you're superior, they indicate that you believe you may have your own individual opinion.
I didn´t mean to limit those rights. In fact, I didn´t say anything about rights at all. A debate is there for people who like to tell each other they are wrong. As far as I am concerned, they can do it until the cows come home.Maybe it's an American thing, but I believe every human has a human right to an opinion. You have the right to tell me you think I'm wrong, and I have the right to tell you I think you're wrong.
Actually, no, you hadn´t mentioned this. And, no, I do not agree with your assessment.And as mentioned above, we all do this as part of our daily lives necessarily.
That´s exactly why I used badminton for an analogy.I wonder if you understand the English word "debate". It is the very same as an athletic competition, except using the brain instead of the body.
Have you ever lost a debate on metaphysics?I don't think you're an insane idiot for wanting to win on the badminton court, but I do think that competing with ideas is more important because whether you lose or win you may can learn something actually useful.
Why would I compete just because my belief is important to me?I think it strange that the more important something is, the less you want to compete at it.
That´s because you didn´t get my point (and, of course, because you immediately jump from "I don´t understand" to "makes me wonder [insert pop-psychological negative personal assumption]": Before losing a life-threatening debate the defense mechanisms as described in the OP will reliably kick in and prevent the experience of a loss. That´s why such debates are imo pointless, to begin with, and that´s exactly why they go the way they typically go.I'm no shrink, but it makes me wonder if you fear losing at debate in a way you don't fear losing at badminton, since nothing really important comes of a badminton loss, whereas something important might possibly come of a metaphysics debate loss.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?