Debate and Dialectic

[Agnes Birdsong]

Any time I hear somebody say that they love to debate, I cringe a little; usually what they mean is that they love to compete, and competition isn't something I'm a big fan of. It is incredibly easy to say something wrong and hurt somebody's feelings, which can lead to all sorts of complexes and complications. Allow me here to address the "thick skin" idea: a person with a thin shell, who allows things to easily get to them, is not less worthy of self-esteem than a person who has a thicker shell.

 

Anyway, this is a creeping feeling I've had my entire life, to the point where I could barely stand school rallys: Is our home team really better than the other one, simply by virtue of it being ours? Is our school really necessarily better? Why do I need to insist that we're better? Get that pom-pom out of my face.

 

You can imagine my relief when I went to college and school events were no longer compulsory. Even greater was my joy when I took a course in philosophy that dealt with early Greek ideas of discussion; Socrates (or perhaps Plato, it is sometimes hard to tell whose opinion is really whose) seemed to have this idea that debate and competition was as silly as I had always felt it was. Deciding that you have a viewpoint, which is not necessarily just your own and is more likely your parents' or your friends' or what have you, then defending it to the death doesn't seem like it's getting us anywhere.

 

There even seems to be a notion of this in the debate rules in this very forum:

 

Remember that this is a DEBATE as opposed to an argument. Debate and discuss, but do not argue.

 

Just arguing endlessly and stating your opinion as though it were God-decreed fact does not usually make us any more intelligent or knowledgeable than we already were. I suppose there are exceptions, but I'm reasonably sure that everybody has gotten the same feeling. And when a person wins a debate, where are we? How have we ended up? What have you won?

 

As a solution to this, I'd like to suggest a different form of discussion, which I am going to call a dialectic. This is because when I was introduced to the idea, it was called that; other definitions may vary. In it, a proposition is given, then countered by another proposition. The two are then synthesized together to form a third statement, which is hopefully truer than the first two. This third statement, of course, is likely not perfect; more changes must be proposed, and the statement changed accordingly, to further refine it.

 

The important part is the spirit of the discussion: nobody is trying to prove any opinion be right. The idea is to form ideas about a thing and change them, thus furthering our understanding of the subject at hand. It seems to me to be a healthier way of creating and sharing knowledge than fighting over who is right.

 

I would be interested to hear what other people have to say about this; if you feel that debate is the right way to go, I would love to see your reasons why.

[Cassie]

First of, let me say that I love how you put that together to make me totally understand my way of thinking. I don't like to argue, but bringing 2 opinions together and creating a new and unique one which everyone can enjoy just sounds so exciting.

 

I've never been great at debating, but I've always been great at creating.

(I hated those pom pom throwing cheerleaders. My school sucked at sports except our girl's basketball team. I think that is the only team I would defend in a debate.)

[SkyTurtle]

I agree with both of you, Agnes and Cassie. I love to pick apart an issue to see all the parts, to discuss the different angles and viewpoints. Unfortunately some of the most interesting issues are also the most emotionally volatile. I used to sit for hours discussing aspects of race with a friend who was *ahem* on the opposite end of the skin-tone spectrum from me. Shell and I compared the differences and similarities of the VASTLY different cultures that exist cheek-by-jowl in our hometown.

 

But there's that key word again: discuss. We did not argue. Did we agree? Not often! But we talked past the emotional aspect of race. We discussed, debated...and parted company on good terms.

 

Unfortunately folks like Shell seem to be few and far between. Over the year or so she lived near me we talked about every hot-button topic there is...topics that can start a shouting match with most people.

 

I, too, despise conflict. But I feel that the only way to end the conflict is to openly discuss the issues. Nothing is likely to be resolved if we insist upon using emotional attacks to "prove" our points. Talk...and more importantly, listen!

[Unstream]

Your idea of dialectic is interesting, but I don't think it's actually very useful, and in some cases not even applicable.

 

Say for an example I believed that everyone in the United States should receive government mandated health care. Now suppose someone has the complete opposite opinion - that health care should be provided by the private sector and the private sector only. How would you combine the two statements together and form a refined statement truer than that one?

 

Second thing that I want to bring up is the fact that debates actually have a point. Suppose that that someone and I had a debate together and I won that debate. It will probably at least open up his mind to consider my view, and I would be able to gain another person to support what I believe in, and there is strength in numbers.

 

Also, competition isn't a bad thing. Capitalism is based off of the idea of competition in a sense (and as we know, Capitalism is a good component in any government). If private companies are trying their best to come out on top, then technology advances faster. Competitions almost always provide the winner with something they want, whether it be money, fame, pride, power, an opportunity, or some material possession of some sort.

 

We can use that health care debate I mentioned earlier. Winning that debate, I've won over someone from the other side, having convinced them that I was right. Say after that, I won more and more debates with others, and soon, I had my whole school believing in what I believed in, because my points were so influential (remember this is all fictional). From that, I've probably gained some recognition, if it were nothing more than "that smart guy who knows a lot about health care". I've also gained power, because I have people who can back me up in further debates. In winning, I've probably also gained a sense of pride, which is natural for most winners in any competition. I've also gained an opportunity, because the more people I influence, the more people they'll influence, and it'll spread, increasing the possibility that government mandated health care would become a reality.

[Agnes Birdsong]

Your idea of dialectic is interesting, but I don't think it's actually very useful, and in some cases not even applicable.

 

Say for an example I believed that everyone in the United States should receive government mandated health care. Now suppose someone has the complete opposite opinion - that health care should be provided by the private sector and the private sector only. How would you combine the two statements together and form a refined statement truer than that one?

 

Second thing that I want to bring up is the fact that debates actually have a point. Suppose that that someone and I had a debate together and I won that debate. It will probably at least open up his mind to consider my view, and I would be able to gain another person to support what I believe in, and there is strength in numbers.

 

Also, competition isn't a bad thing. Capitalism is based off of the idea of competition in a sense (and as we know, Capitalism is a good component in any government). If private companies are trying their best to come out on top, then technology advances faster. Competitions almost always provide the winner with something they want, whether it be money, fame, pride, power, an opportunity, or some material possession of some sort.

 

We can use that health care debate I mentioned earlier. Winning that debate, I've won over someone from the other side, having convinced them that I was right. Say after that, I won more and more debates with others, and soon, I had my whole school believing in what I believed in, because my points were so influential (remember this is all fictional). From that, I've probably gained some recognition, if it were nothing more than "that smart guy who knows a lot about health care". I've also gained power, because I have people who can back me up in further debates. In winning, I've probably also gained a sense of pride, which is natural for most winners in any competition. I've also gained an opportunity, because the more people I influence, the more people they'll influence, and it'll spread, increasing the possibility that government mandated health care would become a reality.

 

Your first point, about debate, is likely true; I, in my infinite foolishness, could not expect myself to come up with a perfect solution to every problem ever. It is true that debate has its place; however, I think that it has an undeservedly important place in the modern human psyche. I believe that we spend far too much time worrying about who has won what battle of the wits and not enough time worrying about whether the loser has come out of it with his or her self-esteem intact.

 

That is why I'm so worried about your fictional story; that person, who you have won over to your side, had previously been a supporter of the opposite side. And from what I've observed about people and their opinions, it is likely that they have been wrapped up in that opinion so thoroughly that having been defeated in "battle" has done some damage to their image of themselves. Your imagining of it being a peaceful crossover to your opinion is really not a likely situation; as SkyTurtle observed, people who have the emotional maturity to accept that they have been proven wrong are really not very common. More often they end up lashing out or refusing to accept what has just been shown to them. Does that make them bad people? I don't think it does. It just makes them human. And this is a situation where I think dialectic would help so much; it is a method which does not seek to prove anyone right or wrong, but just to combine every understandable opinion together in a way where nobody ends up with their ego bruised.

 

About competition giving the winner something they want; what about the losers? Do the losers get anything they need? That's what makes me so angry about competition: nobody ever seems to care about the losers, who in my sight are just as worthy of getting the things they need and want as the winners. The fade from sight, while the winners rise and shine. Where do they go?

 

In your last paragraph, you talk about pride and recognition; do you really need that recognition? Is it really making you genuinely happy, on your deepest emotional level? I've won some things, and I've always found a certain flavor of bitterness upon recognizing that the people who are suddenly all interested in me because of it soon move on once I've lost something. It's just always struck me as fake and I'd like something with a little more depth to it. Maybe I've just had bad experiences. Do you find that the people who flock to your knowledge of health care reform are good, genuine, dependable friends?

[Unstream]

Well first off I never said debates are meant to make friends. That's not the real goal. The point of a debate is more to make something that you want to happen actually happen. Making friends requires more than being smart and being right.

 

True, there might not be that many people with the emotional maturity to switch their views when logic tells them to, but there are still ones that will, and some is still better than none. And I believe that if information is presented in the correct way, then many will still be willing to change their views.

 

And what a loser gets out of a competition is really what they take out of it. See, if I were to lose a music competition (and trust me, I've lost many), I could pout for a couple of days, hate the person who won, and claim that the judges were biased or something. Or I could be happy for the person who did win and realize that they probably put more time and effort into the competition than I did, because more often than not, the person who wins deserves to win. I can decide to work harder then, to match and surpass their abilities. It may give me some drive to try harder next time. I could talk to the judges and ask what I could improve on, and take some constructive criticism. I could talk to the winner and ask what he or she did to prepare, and maybe learn something along the way.

 

Of course, not everyone will react that way, but there are people that act negatively to every situation. It's really their choice to react the way they do. If they managed to approach things with a more positive and proactive manner, then losing might not be such a bad thing after all.

 

And just so you know, I'm not completely trashing your idea of dialectic debates (? - not sure if that's a good word. Just that dialectic sounds like an adjective to me). It's interesting and a good idea, and it'd be great if it was utilized wherever it'd be effective. I'm just defending debates and the nature of competition.

[Cassie]

I can see how debate could be compared to religious wars. A group of people telling others to join their religion and the other group telling the first to join theirs instead. A lot of people died because of these wars and conflicts.

[Unstream]

Not really. For one, the scale of the debate tends to be smaller. And the debate is an attempt to solve things in a nonviolent way. It is used often times in diplomacy, and if successfully done it avoids war, not start one.

 

And why religious wars particularly? I mean, for your example, any war could have been used...

 

Also keep in mind that religious wars weren't really over who to believe but more over land. Like the Crusades in the Middle Ages was over the possession of the Holy Land.

[Cassie]

Well yeah I guess any war could work, but I just used religion because a lot of people are very close to religion. Its one of the things you can't talk about without there being a huge argument. like politics or sports.

[Silent&Sullen]

I like debating and I'm very competitive. I'm the kind of person that makes you die on the inside. :P

 

Now that that is out of the way...

 

About competition giving the winner something they want; what about the losers? Do the losers get anything they need? That's what makes me so angry about competition: nobody ever seems to care about the losers, who in my sight are just as worthy of getting the things they need and want as the winners. The fade from sight, while the winners rise and shine. Where do they go?

 

Have you ever heard the saying "You never learn by doing things right"? I'm pretty sure I botched the saying itself, but you get the general idea.

 

When you 'win', that's it. There's nothing else you can do until next time. You've found the winning combination, and all you can do now is sit and wait until someone better comes along. But when you, er, 'lose', you get an up close example of what works and what doesn't. You get the chance to refine your strategy, to mold it into what will eventually win. You become more well-rounded that way.

 

In chess, your skills don't grow much when you win. Sure, you get much needed practice with your strategies, but you don't exactly learn much more of anything. But when you lose, you study your opponent and yourself. You pay attention to the little details that lost you your king and gained him a checkmate. You build a new strategy by taking note of what to do and what not to do.

 

That's the benefit of competition. It forces you to take a hard look at yourself and gives you motivation to do better. Your fast computer came from a computer company that wanted to outdo another. More comfortable and fuel-efficient cars were built because manufactors had significant motivation (more money, generally being at the top). Prototypes of mattresses, pencils, even the blinds on your windows, were made and a few failed. Creators learn from their mistakes and, uh, create better things. A little competition never hurt.

 

((Though, everything in moderation. Did you know too much artificial light causes cancer? Well, actually, that's an exaggeration; light just reduces melatonin levels in your body, which helps prevent cancerous cells from forming. Yet artificial light aids us in seeing in the dark -- it's probably a smidge more harmful to drive around in the dark. That's proof that too much of anything is bad. Getting so competitive to the point that you want to kill people is a bit silly. ))

 

---

 

With your definition of dialectic you've provided above (I don't know much about the subject so I'll have to take your word for it), dialectic and debate are not quite interchangeable. Both are best for certain situations. Not every solution can be middle route, just as not every situation has a clear solution. Every solution has its disadvantages and advantages and debating helps to decide if certain advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Bob and I are making Christmas cards: he thinks the background should be dark green, but I think pale red looks best. We could discuss and come to a compromise, make the background plain white, but that debate isn't about what we wanted. The cards aren't for us. The debate was about which background looks best... yes it's subjective, but in the end, someone's opinion is going to win. If we go with the dark green, then that's that. Bob shouldn't have worry about my self-esteem, we're going with the best solution possible which is in the long run benefiting both of us and the people we're making the cards for.

 

For me, debating isn't about win/lose. It's about coming to the best conclusion. And losing a debate doesn't always necessarily mean being converted to the other guy's frame of mind, it's just that his argument was better. I actually like it when someone is opposing my ideas because they're forcing me to better shape them and understand them for myself. Dialectic is sometimes to best route to that and sometimes it is not.

 

...More often they end up lashing out or refusing to accept what has just been shown to them. Does that make them bad people? I don't think it does. It just makes them human.

 

But that still doesn't make it right. Catering debates to someone's ego is defeating the purpose. We're not arguing who is the better person, we're arguing who has the better idea. When I'm debating, I give it all I got... there must be some reason why I believe in my idea so strongly, and if I can't or not willing prove why it's better, then it's not very strong to begin with. Getting so attached to an idea to the point where it's starting rarely ever turns out right, anyway.

 

 

 

Whoa, sorry for the novel. Ha, when I get started on a topic, I get started. xD

 

This topic has been edited by a member of staff (Meowy Christmas) because of a violation of the forum rules.

Please do not bump an old topic that has been inactive for over 21 days.

Please check your user inbox to see if you have been contacted regarding this incident, then review our rules.

Per the reason above, this topic has been LOCKED. Please contact Meowy Christmas if you have any questions regarding this action.