Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote=Thoreau424;49846568]Debates are nothing like they used to be. Most of what passes at "debating" these days is heavily-steeped in emotion and drama. It's mostly about using "the heart" and energy these days, rather than using strictly the mind and intellect. That could be our biggest loss since the origins of our country. Likewise, most people cannot analyze and decipher what they see, hear, and read. People really don't think for themselves, and are easily manipulated and gullible to the powers that be. There are relatively few that can stay detuned and immune from the drama, and see things as they truly are. It's the perfect atmosphere to breed corruption, hatred, and dysfunction.[/quote
Well said.
When I went to college I remember many of the classes being open for debate but that was years ago and sadly today the colleges seem to have gone the way of the Left and are putting out graduates that are in a way brainwashed to think a certain way without consideration for anything else.
They will think that they are smart but anyone that has been around for awhile or has an appreciation for America knows better.
I just think that in many cases people don't take the time to read beyond the headline or they get their news from the fast paced social media where we all know that even if it is wrong it doesn't matter if it fits the agenda.
People don't seem to have the patience to listen to someone else especially if it is something they don't agree with. Blame their short attention spans or their self entitlement but people need to do less talking and more listening.
I'm an engineer. Professionally, I don't get to declare opinions to be facts. If I'm having a technical discussion and I'm shown to be wrong, I revise my opinion and move on. You can't know everything. I'm constantly learning. I've worked with a few dogmatic engineers over the years. They don't tend to last long.
Somehow, I think 90% of the country doesn't process like that. They accept fiction as fact. Fake news. Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. You can't have a rational intellectual discussion with someone who dogmatically clings to those things. I don't even try.
Debates tend to turn into arguing and yelling. Everyone believes they are RIGHT, and when others disagree with them, they get angry. Nothing wrong with that; it's only human nature and we only want others to see things our way.
To me, the best debate is on a stage with both sides presenting their case to an audience who have no personal feelings attached to a topic. Like presidential election debates. But do NOT have both sides face each other to tell their stance to the other side; arguments and anger almost always happens.
To really change things, get like-minded people together and get them to work.
Unfortunately many debates now are mired in emotion, blame and name-calling. Many people simply do not use or understand logic.
If people would stop blaming the other side, insulting entire groups of people and simply present logical unemotional arguments, debates would go much smoother. Points may even be proved.
Go back and read the comments in this debate regarding debates and you will see that to which I am referring.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 4 days ago)
35,612 posts, read 17,940,183 times
Reputation: 50639
Debates can be useful to the audience, to hear different viewpoints.
But if you're talking about whether debates are "effective" for people who are looking for recreational debate, no. Not an effective way to change a mind.
Because people who seek to debate for recreation are seeking to prove someone else "wrong", not to learn.
People who seek to converse, and ask lots of questions, are looking to learn with an open mind.
People who come to the internet searching for a topic to debate aren't.
Increasingly I don't think you can change people's minds with argumentation. I think people's beliefs are hard-coded by their identity and place in society. If anything I think that in the past people were more credulous and could be convinced to work against their interests. Now that is much harder to do.
On the one hand it's a shame since reasoned debate is one of the best gifts of the Enlightenment, and makes life more engaging and with generally better outcomes. On the other hand I don't expect, say, a homosexual to be convinced that same-sex marriage should be made illegal. In this case and many others like it debate is pointless and a bit insulting.
How to resolve conflicts in the absence of debate is a much bigger topic which I won't touch on.
You certainly have a point if you're talking about debates related to politics and elections. It can be argued that presidential debates are worthless because the outcomes rarely change anyone's mind. We've had presidents who've probably lost most of the debates they partook in during their campaigns. We've also had brilliant candidates who were dominant in debates but did not ever approach a sizable portion of the vote. At a certain point one has to wonder why everyone is always so eager to even tune in. If we're set in our ways, why not just read the policy manifestos published on our preferred candidates' websites and call it a day?
My hunch is that, for a lot of people, this is one of the scenarios where it's not really whether you win or lose, but how you play the game. For example, like anyone else I can evaluate what candidates stand for pretty easily without a debate; the debate doesn't change my mind from a policy standpoint, but it does provide me a layman's chance to "test the mettle" of my preferred candidate. After all, what good is it for a candidate to promote the policies I support but wilt under the pressure of tough cross-examination? Watching debates helps me evaluate the intangibles of the candidates I would consider supporting: their charisma, their intelligence, their preparation, their adaptability, their spine, etc.
Now if we're talking outside of political elections, yes it can still be argued that debating is worthless. Because again, debate alone rarely ever changes anyone's mind. We especially see this when it comes to religion. People "debate" with one another until they're blue in the face trying to get each other to adopt the "correct" opinion. But when we have 100 different people with 100 completely different "correct" opinions, the logic for all but one of those opinions would have to be pretty shaky, right?
Let's just face it: dealing in facts is the best way to live. But most of us are far too human for that. Most of us do not want to deal in facts; we want to deal in emotions. We accept only the "facts" that support the emotional decisions we've already made. We most often decide what to believe, then mold the "facts" to support what we believe. The truly objective person (extremely rare) instead more often starts with the facts and allows them to lead him/her to their decision.
So where do I land in all of this? I believe I have a well above-average level of objectivity, though I'm certainly not completely without bias. I'm wrong as often as is anyone. I tend to readily admit wrongs when there's nothing really at stake (i.e. I can admit the wrong while holding my ego intact). I'm slower to admit wrongs when the person correcting me is someone I lack respect for or whose delivery of the "truth" I find distasteful. Even though I believe I am often correct, unless my family or I will be directly negatively impacted in some tangible manner by a disagreement with someone, I see no use in trying to "debate" others into my points-of-view. For the sake of the intellectual engagement I will state my position, support my position with the same facts, logic and reason that caused me to reach the position in the first place, then move on. I can live with people disagreeing with me and even correcting me; I cannot live with people who try to bully me about their "truth", or who try to bully me about anything else for that matter ...
The ultimate moral to this meandering monologue of a post? Focus not on winning debates; focus on making friends and speaking truth in love. Outside of defeating someone in some type of battle, this is really the only way to get others to listen to us. And even more importantly, this is also the most effective way to open ourselves to listening and learning as well.
First, they're really almost never "debates", if we're talking about formal rules of debating. And if we really conducted that type of debate, no one would play.
Second, and I'm guilty of this myself, there's an attitude here that you have to "win" your point, as if most things in life are "either/or". In reality, truths are very often somewhere in between.
Third, it's tough to say "I'm done with this back and forth", simply because it's time to stop spinning wheels. When you do that, the other poster often posts something akin to, "Glad to know that you know I won", when in reality it's often just, "I've said all I have to say on the topic" or "I know I'm not getting anywhere with you, so I might as well stop". It doesn't mean one has surrendered; it just means one has tired of the back and forth.
First, they're really almost never "debates", if we're talking about formal rules of debating. And if we really conducted that type of debate, no one would play.
Second, and I'm guilty of this myself, there's an attitude here that you have to "win" your point, as if most things in life are "either/or". In reality, truths are very often somewhere in between.
Third, it's tough to say "I'm done with this back and forth", simply because it's time to stop spinning wheels. When you do that, the other poster often posts something akin to, "Glad to know that you know I won", when in reality it's often just, "I've said all I have to say on the topic" or "I know I'm not getting anywhere with you, so I might as well stop". It doesn't mean one has surrendered; it just means one has tired of the back and forth.
There a lots of people who will take an abandoned argument as an admission of defeat. But in many cases often you just realize that there is nothing to be gained from engaging with the person any further. And lots of people know this is a "winning" strategy...they just wear down the other person with insults and inane responses. I call it the "no u" strategy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
