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.
