• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is debate productive?

C

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
A simple reality I have come to understand about people is that people generally treat what they believe as the Truth.

This is an odd tendency of people because we all seem to really be operating under certain values, perceptions, and interpretations, which can differ considerably and which we may assume are infallible and objective, but which are inherently subjective.

For example, whether it is religion or atheism there is a sense of certainty about the belief that people seem to pretend is justified. I watch people, and even have in the past been a party to, long debates about religious scriptures, which from the outside makes about as much sense as chasing a dog in a locked kennel. Such debates are not about the Truth of scriptures but about the truth of the particular interpretations each party holds or the perceptions of how infallible those scriptures are. As such the debate is not really about the scriptures but about the assumptions of the people taking part in the debate. Likewise, I see atheistic debates that are just as absurd because arguing that one has never perceived a deity within their personal experience is not evidence that someone else has not perceived a deity within their personal experience. Who is to argue that a deity does not exist for those who choose to believe in one?

Values, in and of themselves, are often treated as objective, verifiable, irrefutable, and common sense. However values are typically just ideals or culturally influenced standards of conduct and they can often be contradictory. Entire nations have gone to war over differences in values, giving truth to that old adage that WAR stands for "we are right." It seems all too common that this type of certainty that a particular set of values is inherently superior to all others, is accepted on faith alone to the extent that people will kill or oppress to promote their respective view.

If debate is viewed as a war of ideas, then who is really the winner? Can a productive understanding really be achieved while trying to defend ideas that are inherently based on subjective values, perceptions, and interpretations? Even if the evidence is superior and the facts support a particular view that does not change the reality that people choose to believe what they do based on what they personally perceive in the world and how they interpret that information in the context of their values. Two people can look at exactly the same data and draw completely different interpretations about what that data says which is why even solid scientific methodology holds little value in swaying established beliefs.

All debate seems to accomplish is to help firm up the convictions of the people who engage in it. I suppose I could assume that observers of debate could be swayed to a particular viewpoint if it is presented well, but I am more inclined to believe that observers are subject to the same subjective biases of values, perceptions, and interpretations as all other human beings. I think debate may work well to move the undecided to one direction or another by presenting information that is aligned to their particular values, perceptions, and interpretations, but that would be the extent to which I could see debate actually being productive.
 
I don't find it at all odd, as we have a highly emotional component to our personalities, thus ego gets involved. To be purely rational would have its downside as well, so I think I prefer our mix of reasoning capabilities and methods.

I do think that debate is productive, as it does expose us to other points of view, and no matter how opposed we may be, just the exposure to other lines of reasoning does have its effect on us, and gradually softens our rigidity.
 
Debate can be productive. What we often encounter on DP is contradiction and massive amounts of unfounded lunacy. It can't be productive.
 
CriticalThought said:
A simple reality I have come to understand about people is that people generally treat what they believe as the Truth.

This is an odd tendency of people because we all seem to really be operating under certain values, perceptions, and interpretations, which can differ considerably and which we may assume are infallible and objective, but which are inherently subjective.

For example, whether it is religion or atheism there is a sense of certainty about the belief that people seem to pretend is justified. I watch people, and even have in the past been a party to, long debates about religious scriptures, which from the outside makes about as much sense as chasing a dog in a locked kennel. Such debates are not about the Truth of scriptures but about the truth of the particular interpretations each party holds or the perceptions of how infallible those scriptures are. As such the debate is not really about the scriptures but about the assumptions of the people taking part in the debate. Likewise, I see atheistic debates that are just as absurd because arguing that one has never perceived a deity within their personal experience is not evidence that someone else has not perceived a deity within their personal experience. Who is to argue that a deity does not exist for those who choose to believe in one?

Values, in and of themselves, are often treated as objective, verifiable, irrefutable, and common sense. However values are typically just ideals or culturally influenced standards of conduct and they can often be contradictory. Entire nations have gone to war over differences in values, giving truth to that old adage that WAR stands for "we are right." It seems all too common that this type of certainty that a particular set of values is inherently superior to all others, is accepted on faith alone to the extent that people will kill or oppress to promote their respective view.

If debate is viewed as a war of ideas, then who is really the winner? Can a productive understanding really be achieved while trying to defend ideas that are inherently based on subjective values, perceptions, and interpretations? Even if the evidence is superior and the facts support a particular view that does not change the reality that people choose to believe what they do based on what they personally perceive in the world and how they interpret that information in the context of their values. Two people can look at exactly the same data and draw completely different interpretations about what that data says which is why even solid scientific methodology holds little value in swaying established beliefs.

All debate seems to accomplish is to help firm up the convictions of the people who engage in it. I suppose I could assume that observers of debate could be swayed to a particular viewpoint if it is presented well, but I am more inclined to believe that observers are subject to the same subjective biases of values, perceptions, and interpretations as all other human beings. I think debate may work well to move the undecided to one direction or another by presenting information that is aligned to their particular values, perceptions, and interpretations, but that would be the extent to which I could see debate actually being productive.
Click to expand...

Excellent question...

Debate is productive insofar if it is constructive.
 
lizzie said:
I don't find it at all odd, as we have a highly emotional component to our personalities, thus ego gets involved. To be purely rational would have its downside as well, so I think I prefer our mix of reasoning capabilities and methods.
Click to expand...

That is a different discussion entirely, although it is probably very related to this one. In my opinion I think the emotional component is what makes the decisions and the reasoning capabilities just justify those decisions after the fact. So much of what therapy involves is the reverse; taking reasoning to bring about an emotional change which in turn brings about a change in behavior. The ego aspect, particularly when it comes to identity factors like competence or character, is undoubtedly a big part. It is amazing how deep seated assumptions about identity are and how quickly they emotionally resonate when they are touched upon. Humans are social creatures and we naturally survive best in groups, and it would appear that we have been shaped by nature to be form ideas about ourselves and the world that will help us cooperate and readily form stable bonds with others. Anything that threatens that self concept almost comes off as a threat to our very survival which is how it seems sometimes on this board based on how people behave.

I do think that debate is productive, as it does expose us to other points of view, and no matter how opposed we may be, just the exposure to other lines of reasoning does have its effect on us, and gradually softens our rigidity.
Click to expand...

That is true. Although the same can be accomplished through discussion while probably evoking considerably less initial emotional reaction. I think a lot of it comes down to how a person takes disagreement on a personal level.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Debate can be productive. What we often encounter on DP is contradiction and massive amounts of unfounded lunacy. It can't be productive.
Click to expand...

I view a lot of that behavior as crossing the line to assume intent. People start to believe the worse about those who disagree with them often because they can't understand how they see things differently and so they start to believe they are either incompetent or have malicious motives.
 
If one does not venture into debate how can any of us test our own beliefs? For without an opponent how can you challenge yourself to know and understand why you believe what you do? Debate is very healthy especially to one's self.
 
Hypersonic said:
Excellent question...

Debate is productive insofar if it is constructive.
Click to expand...

It is tough to discern what is constructive. Building a case by finding and interpreting information you believe supports your own point of view? Attacking the perceived weak points of the point of view of those who disagree with you? It seems to me that all debates, if they don't devolve into personal attacks, eventually become disagreements of perceptions, interpretations, or values. What then is the next step when what you have is simply a disagreement of how people choose to see things?
 
vesper said:
If one does not venture into debate how can any of us test our own beliefs? For without an opponent how can you challenge yourself to know and understand why you believe what you do? Debate is very healthy especially to one's self.
Click to expand...

Personally, the challenge seems to truly be internal, not external.

For example, I discussed with a coworker his views that HIV is a massive conspiracy established by the Queen of England to control the world's population, particularly those who are of African descent. I could have debated with him on the matter, but that very well could have affected our working relationship since he seemed to have a strong emotional connection to his point of view. Instead I simply discussed the matter with him from a position of curiosity and understanding. The real test was the emotional turmoil I experienced inside myself as I patiently explored his point of view. I discovered my own views on the topic were quite emotionally vested in the value I place on science and the evidence it has generated on the topic of HIV. I did not have to debate him to come to this understanding and I don't believe it would have been very productive or beneficial to even try. I got to express my opinion in a very cordial way and to hear his presented in much the same way.
 
CriticalThought said:
It is tough to discern what is constructive. Building a case by finding and interpreting information you believe supports your own point of view? Attacking the perceived weak points of the point of view of those who disagree with you? It seems to me that all debates, if they don't devolve into personal attacks, eventually become disagreements of perceptions, interpretations, or values. What then is the next step when what you have is simply a disagreement of how people choose to see things?
Click to expand...

The ability to know the possibility that you could be wrong is constructive
 
Hypersonic said:
The ability to know the possibility that you could be wrong is constructive
Click to expand...

If debate can undermine your certainty in your point of view then it can be constructive?

Ah, that is a line of reasoning I can get behind. Certainty inhibits new learning and thus we can only learn if we are willing to accept that we may be wrong. Absolutes are much more emotionally comfortable, but exploring the nuances of other points of view opens up unexplored possibilities. I can see how debate could be productive for the sake of learning if the participant can be willing and open minded enough to consider a differing point of view. But in that case, it does not seem that debate in itself is really what is productive but rather your own willingness to be flexible in what you choose to believe and the certainty your choose to place in it. I suppose I need to view debate as simply a tool that people can use to their own benefit or detriment. It can be productive if used in a productive way.
 
CriticalThought said:
A simple reality I have come to understand about people is that people generally treat what they believe as the Truth.

This is an odd tendency of people because we all seem to really be operating under certain values, perceptions, and interpretations, which can differ considerably and which we may assume are infallible and objective, but which are inherently subjective.

For example, whether it is religion or atheism there is a sense of certainty about the belief that people seem to pretend is justified. I watch people, and even have in the past been a party to, long debates about religious scriptures, which from the outside makes about as much sense as chasing a dog in a locked kennel. Such debates are not about the Truth of scriptures but about the truth of the particular interpretations each party holds or the perceptions of how infallible those scriptures are. As such the debate is not really about the scriptures but about the assumptions of the people taking part in the debate. Likewise, I see atheistic debates that are just as absurd because arguing that one has never perceived a deity within their personal experience is not evidence that someone else has not perceived a deity within their personal experience. Who is to argue that a deity does not exist for those who choose to believe in one?

Values, in and of themselves, are often treated as objective, verifiable, irrefutable, and common sense. However values are typically just ideals or culturally influenced standards of conduct and they can often be contradictory. Entire nations have gone to war over differences in values, giving truth to that old adage that WAR stands for "we are right." It seems all too common that this type of certainty that a particular set of values is inherently superior to all others, is accepted on faith alone to the extent that people will kill or oppress to promote their respective view.

If debate is viewed as a war of ideas, then who is really the winner? Can a productive understanding really be achieved while trying to defend ideas that are inherently based on subjective values, perceptions, and interpretations? Even if the evidence is superior and the facts support a particular view that does not change the reality that people choose to believe what they do based on what they personally perceive in the world and how they interpret that information in the context of their values. Two people can look at exactly the same data and draw completely different interpretations about what that data says which is why even solid scientific methodology holds little value in swaying established beliefs.

All debate seems to accomplish is to help firm up the convictions of the people who engage in it. I suppose I could assume that observers of debate could be swayed to a particular viewpoint if it is presented well, but I am more inclined to believe that observers are subject to the same subjective biases of values, perceptions, and interpretations as all other human beings. I think debate may work well to move the undecided to one direction or another by presenting information that is aligned to their particular values, perceptions, and interpretations, but that would be the extent to which I could see debate actually being productive.
Click to expand...

Debate is productive whether we accept it as productive or not. It is important to learn other peoples thoughts on issues, if no other reason than to justify your own views.

You made this thread in hopes of learning something right? I think that it really depends on what you are looking to get out of a debate. Some people want to win, some want to spread a concept, ideology, belief system etc. some like to talk to people, and some want to learn something, broaden their knowledge.

I noticed that you are talking about the typical religious vs the non religious debates to pick on. Or the more often than not Christianity vs atheism. Some of these debates are very good while others suck big time. I know that I have learned a lot since I started being involved in such debates. Not really from the people that I am debating with but from the research that I do on whatever subject. It helps me learn things that I would not have normally pursued. Or with concepts I have never even dreamed of.
 
CriticalThought said:
Personally, the challenge seems to truly be internal, not external.

For example, I discussed with a coworker his views that HIV is a massive conspiracy established by the Queen of England to control the world's population, particularly those who are of African descent. I could have debated with him on the matter, but that very well could have affected our working relationship since he seemed to have a strong emotional connection to his point of view. Instead I simply discussed the matter with him from a position of curiosity and understanding. The real test was the emotional turmoil I experienced inside myself as I patiently explored his point of view. I discovered my own views on the topic were quite emotionally vested in the value I place on science and the evidence it has generated on the topic of HIV. I did not have to debate him to come to this understanding and I don't believe it would have been very productive or beneficial to even try. I got to express my opinion in a very cordial way and to hear his presented in much the same way.
Click to expand...

Maybe I should have added, choose your debates wisely. There is nothing to gain from getting involved in an argument based in lunacy. Nor is it productive to base an argument on emotion.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Debate can be productive. What we often encounter on DP is contradiction and massive amounts of unfounded lunacy. It can't be productive.
Click to expand...

I agree... But when it comes to politics on boards like this, I think it's limited because there are so many people only interested in defending their idealogical beliefs, and have no interest in obtaining the truth.
 
Depends on one's purpose for debate. I find debating to be very productive, but that's because my purpose is never to win or change someone's mind. I've posted this before. My purposes for debate fall into one of the following 4 categories:

1) To present my position and well and as completely as possible.
2) To refute/humiliate my opponent's position as completely as possible.
3) To educate others on issues that they may not know much about.
4) To learn about issues that I do not know much about.
 
CriticalThought said:
I view a lot of that behavior as crossing the line to assume intent. People start to believe the worse about those who disagree with them often because they can't understand how they see things differently and so they start to believe they are either incompetent or have malicious motives.
Click to expand...

That's not always the case. Sometimes (probably quite a high percentage) it is the premise upon which someone makes their argument that is flawed. If you attempt to draw that to their attention, it is at this juncture, I feel, most become irrational and eventually malicious. I suppose it very much depends on how the question/reply is phrased, I mean, so many present it in such a way, as the 'begging the question' position is used without most people actually understanding that's what they've done :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Paul
 
I found my discussions with certain people (like Rabidalpaca or GermanGuy or Maggie or such)very productive. With others, not really. Depends on who you are debating with.
 
Debate seems, to me, a very informative and entertaining, interactive pastime. The most important aspect, for me, is to think more, and then more, deeply about my own beliefs, to put them in some semblance of an ordered belief. Not allowing myself to just believe just because, but to have some foundation to most of what it is that I believe. I think it is good to have those beliefs, where we often ourselves might miss huge holes, those that just pass unnoticed somehow, questioned by others who have different beliefs… or who have already thought a bit more profoundly on a topic than I might have previously.

I have had my positions changed on things like abortion and gun control [ neither recently ] by discussion and debate. And, for those who have already broached this aspect, there truly is quite a lot of difference between discussion and debate.

Have also strengthened my beliefs along the way, learned a great deal about things I might not otherwise have discovered, links to some very informative articles, charts and information sources I may not, in the normal course, have run across on my own. I enjoy the research aspect of debate, I learn much having to make efforts to win with evidence, logic and wording things in such a manner as to make it more difficult for my opponents.

I also enjoy the camaraderie found with those who share, to some degree, my beliefs... and with a gracious opponent when, in the end, we might only agree to disagree with both sides perhaps admiring the other for sticking to their guns, proving as best they can in some, perhaps even most, debates that do not necessarily have an ultimate answer.

Plus, it’s just got to be at least a little good for the brain, if used properly… and most don’t need a prescription, although some here probably could sure use one… and there are the obvious ones who are self-medicating.

And for those that just go around tossing in what I call a verbal hand grenades, Molotov cocktails, hoping to skate off scot-free… I enjoy slinging a few one or two liners back at them as they try to fade into the distance.

And… for those who just want to trade a few barbs? Why not? At least until it gets boring. Most trying that here need to learn to mix it up a bit, to at least attempt a bit cleverness about it, that would be my major complaint.

And then, in those certain instances, add to this the difficulty of saying just what it is you want to convey without getting infracted. Priceless. Like the ultimate video game at times, but it’s essence being far more real.

Yes, for me for the most point, debate is productive.
 
Last edited:
One thing I have noticed in here is that a lot more people read threads than respond to them. Debate may be productive in these silent readers taking it all in and may help shape their opinions but it is never productive between the people actually doing the debating.
 
CriticalThought said:
All debate seems to accomplish is to help firm up the convictions of the people who engage in it. I suppose I could assume that observers of debate could be swayed to a particular viewpoint if it is presented well, but I am more inclined to believe that observers are subject to the same subjective biases of values, perceptions, and interpretations as all other human beings. I think debate may work well to move the undecided to one direction or another by presenting information that is aligned to their particular values, perceptions, and interpretations, but that would be the extent to which I could see debate actually being productive.
Click to expand...

On a number of occasions I've been compelled to change my position I held dear simply because I couldn't defend it in any meaningful way. I'd taken my rightness for granted for long enough that when it was called into question by a reasonable counter-argument the only reasonable response was to agree. I've learned to always be on the look-out for someone who has a better idea than I do.

Aside from that, sparring with people helps me keep my faculties sharp.
 
CriticalThought said:
If debate can undermine your certainty in your point of view then it can be constructive?
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely. It forces you to examine your POV again...to satisfy yourself that it's sound. In the course of my lifetime, I've done a 180 on several important issues, and this was, in part, because I was presented with arguments that I could not reasonably deny. (This didn't happen over space of a couple of weeks but over many years, of course.)
 
Debate - especially in a venue such as this - is frequently a spectator sport. So while the debate may in some cases not be very productive for those who are intransigently participating, there are people on the sidelines that may potentially reevaluate their positions as a result of watching the exchange.

So while debate may or may not always be overtly productive for the participants it does not occur in a bubble and there may be unseen, unrealized, and unaccounted for "productive" results of the exchange.
 
Is debate productive?

I find answering such hypotheticals a bit problematic. It might be better that I wait until I experience such before answering.
 
CriticalThought said:
If debate is viewed as a war of ideas, then who is really the winner? .
Click to expand...

An undecided third party observing the debate.

Even if the debate is degraded to the point of compete irrationality, some useful information can be obtained about the same attitudes, believes, biases of participants. After all, in politics it is not enough to find people you agree with on such-and-such topics. It is vital to make sure they are not total jerks who will compromise the shared ideas - and you, by association.
 
CriticalThought said:
A simple reality I have come to understand about people is that people generally treat what they believe as the Truth.

This is an odd tendency of people because we all seem to really be operating under certain values, perceptions, and interpretations, which can differ considerably and which we may assume are infallible and objective, but which are inherently subjective.

For example, whether it is religion or atheism there is a sense of certainty about the belief that people seem to pretend is justified. I watch people, and even have in the past been a party to, long debates about religious scriptures, which from the outside makes about as much sense as chasing a dog in a locked kennel. Such debates are not about the Truth of scriptures but about the truth of the particular interpretations each party holds or the perceptions of how infallible those scriptures are. As such the debate is not really about the scriptures but about the assumptions of the people taking part in the debate. Likewise, I see atheistic debates that are just as absurd because arguing that one has never perceived a deity within their personal experience is not evidence that someone else has not perceived a deity within their personal experience. Who is to argue that a deity does not exist for those who choose to believe in one?

Values, in and of themselves, are often treated as objective, verifiable, irrefutable, and common sense. However values are typically just ideals or culturally influenced standards of conduct and they can often be contradictory. Entire nations have gone to war over differences in values, giving truth to that old adage that WAR stands for "we are right." It seems all too common that this type of certainty that a particular set of values is inherently superior to all others, is accepted on faith alone to the extent that people will kill or oppress to promote their respective view.

If debate is viewed as a war of ideas, then who is really the winner? Can a productive understanding really be achieved while trying to defend ideas that are inherently based on subjective values, perceptions, and interpretations? Even if the evidence is superior and the facts support a particular view that does not change the reality that people choose to believe what they do based on what they personally perceive in the world and how they interpret that information in the context of their values. Two people can look at exactly the same data and draw completely different interpretations about what that data says which is why even solid scientific methodology holds little value in swaying established beliefs.

All debate seems to accomplish is to help firm up the convictions of the people who engage in it. I suppose I could assume that observers of debate could be swayed to a particular viewpoint if it is presented well, but I am more inclined to believe that observers are subject to the same subjective biases of values, perceptions, and interpretations as all other human beings. I think debate may work well to move the undecided to one direction or another by presenting information that is aligned to their particular values, perceptions, and interpretations, but that would be the extent to which I could see debate actually being productive.
Click to expand...

I sense a certain tension (even possibly a contradiction) in your post. If it's the case that all human beings are prone to bias, then on what basis can you say there is some "truth" to any matter? You're just as prone to such bias as anyone else. All that exists are interpretations and construals in such a case--no truth. So debate cannot generate truth, because there is no such thing. It can facilitate conversation among points of view. And while that's all, that still seems productive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom