What Makes A Debate/Discussion Interesting?

[tango]

I joined one about 5 years ago, but it wasn't what I was after. I prefer to watch debates between seasoned veterans.

It's more interesting to debate/discuss with someone who has put serious thought into what they believe. They are more likely to have a meaningful defense for their case, and more likely to prompt me to really think about why I believe what I do.

When discussions turn into one-liners, soundbites and simplistic memes there's little point going any further. At that point people have decided that a (potentially complex) issue can be summarised into a simple meme and therefore anyone who can't see such simple logic is somehow inadequate. Although sometimes throwing a one-liner that supports the diametrically opposed argument can be entertaining, if not conducive to a useful discussion.

 

[MarkFL]

It's more interesting to debate/discuss with someone who has put serious thought into what they believe. They are more likely to have a meaningful defense for their case, and more likely to prompt me to really think about why I believe what I do.

When discussions turn into one-liners, soundbites and simplistic memes there's little point going any further. At that point people have decided that a (potentially complex) issue can be summarised into a simple meme and therefore anyone who can't see such simple logic is somehow inadequate. Although sometimes throwing a one-liner that supports the diametrically opposed argument can be entertaining, if not conducive to a useful discussion.

Very true, discussions that involve the other side ducking and dodging simple truths and stubbornly refusing to concede a point even when presented with strong evidence yet offering nothing in the way of actual reasoning/evidence to support their position grow tiresome very quickly. Sometimes memes can be powerful and cut right to the heart of the matter, and one that I have seen both you and I use is one attributed to Christopher Hitchens, who stated, "That which is presented with no evidence, can just as easily be dismissed with no evidence."

However, neither of us has regurgitated this on its own.

 

[tango]

Very true, discussions that involve the other side ducking and dodging simple truths and stubbornly refusing to concede a point even when presented with strong evidence yet offering nothing in the way of actual reasoning/evidence to support their position grow tiresome very quickly. Sometimes memes can be powerful and cut right to the heart of the matter, and one that I have seen both you and I use is one attributed to Christopher Hitchens, who stated, "That which is presented with no evidence, can just as easily be dismissed with no evidence."

However, neither of us has regurgitated this on its own.

Sometimes a meme can cut to the heart of the matter but most of the time they do little more than attempt to turn a complex subject into a one-liner with associated implications for anyone who disagrees with it.

One I've seen recently (specifically in the wake of the Oregon shooting) is about how we shouldn't refer to "gun control" but call it "massacre prevention". On the face of it that sounds great - who could possibly be opposed to massacre prevention? But it doesn't actually add anything of any value unless it explains how any particular gun control legislation would do anything to prevent another massacre. It's like presenting a move to ban motor vehicles from our roads as "traffic accident prevention" or "car death prevention". Obviously nobody could be opposed to preventing deaths on the roads, could they? But when the price to secure that lack of death is to do away with motor vehicles completely and go back to horse drawn carts, maybe people might rethink their support for it even if that does mean they appear to be in favor of seeing people die on our roads.

That said the meme you listed can be useful in many situations


ETA: This is a bit of a derail of Ruth's thread, let's move to another thread if you'd like to discuss further

 

[tango]

I see I have my own thread now

 

[MoreCoffee]

It's more interesting to debate/discuss with someone who has put serious thought into what they believe. They are more likely to have a meaningful defense for their case, and more likely to prompt me to really think about why I believe what I do.

When discussions turn into one-liners, soundbites and simplistic memes there's little point going any further. At that point people have decided that a (potentially complex) issue can be summarised into a simple meme and therefore anyone who can't see such simple logic is somehow inadequate. Although sometimes throwing a one-liner that supports the diametrically opposed argument can be entertaining, if not conducive to a useful discussion.

A good topic, civil discussion and debate with facts mustered and arguments taken seriously with genuine responses to their content makes a debate/discussion interesting.

 

[MarkFL]

I see I have my own thread now

Yes, good call on moving this discussion.

On your point about how we refer to our stance in a positive light, and give the other stance a negative connotation, I have long thought that about the abortion issue. We have pro-choice and pro-life...both of which sound great at the outset...it sounds better than pro-death and pro-compulsion, or worse, anti-life and anti-choice...

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, good call on moving this discussion.

On your point about how we refer to our stance in a positive light, and give the other stance a negative connotation, I have long thought that about the abortion issue. We have pro-choice and pro-life...both of which sound great at the outset...it sounds better than pro-death and pro-compulsion, or worse, anti-life and anti-choice...

but none of those names captures the reality while pro-abortion and anti-abortion does capture the heart of the debate but neither side wants to adopt those words.

 

[MarkFL]

A good topic, civil discussion and debate with facts mustered and arguments taken seriously with genuine responses to their content makes a debate/discussion interesting.

Yes, a debate/discussion with any one of those qualities makes it worthwhile. When either side goes into a debate/discussion with an unwillingness to budge, even when presented with good reason to do so, this makes it quite pointless.

 

[seekingsolace]

Kindness.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, a debate/discussion with any one of those qualities makes it worthwhile. When either side goes into a debate/discussion with an unwillingness to budge, even when presented with good reason to do so, this makes it quite pointless.

In religion I do not expect my interlocutor to change his or her view but I would like to have a discussion that is civil and where each argument is properly responded to without the weird religious invective that is so common in christian discussion boards.

 

[MarkFL]

but none of those names captures the reality while pro-abortion and anti-abortion does capture the heart of the debate but neither side wants to adopt those words.

Yes, unfortunately the doctors of spin only care about a label with the most appeal to the masses.

 

[MarkFL]

In religion I do not expect my interlocutor to change his or her view but I would like to have a discussion that is civil and where each argument is properly responded to without the weird religious invective that is so common in christian discussion boards.

Yes, I do not expect to cause a person to lose their faith, I only expect that they will concede that as an atheist, my position does not require faith, that my lack of belief is not somehow a religion unto itself, or worse, that I have to prove there is no God when in fact I have never said that, nor will I ever. I also expect that we should be able to agree that statements based on faith cannot be given as fact. They can be given as reasons for other beliefs, but not as facts.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, I do not expect to cause a person to lose their faith, I only expect that they will concede that as an atheist, my position does not require faith, that my lack of belief is not somehow a religion unto itself, or worse, that I have to prove there is no God when in fact I have never said that, nor will I ever. I also expect that we should be able to agree that statements based on faith cannot be given as fact. They can be given as reasons for other beliefs, but not as facts.

I used to run an atheist chat channel on IRC; did so for around seven years so I know what you mean.

 

[tango]

but none of those names captures the reality while pro-abortion and anti-abortion does capture the heart of the debate but neither side wants to adopt those words.

In fairness "anti-abortion" does reasonably represent the view of those who dislike abortion while "pro-abortion" doesn't always accurately reflect the full range of views that it might be expected to cover. For example in general I am opposed to abortion but can see that under some circumstances it is acceptable (for example, a friend of mine was supposed to have a sibling but it was clear that carrying the pregnancy to term would almost certainly have killed his mother and probably the unborn sibling as well, so it was aborted). Does that make me pro-abortion, pro-life, pro-choice or anti-abortion?

... and this leads into another fundamental problem often seen in discussion, when an outlook that doesn't neatly fit into a single pigeonhole is forced into a pigeonhole by a discussion framework that expects people to "pick a side". It's much like the idea often seen in discussion that if I vote a particular way it means I must not only support every single thing my preferred candidate says but I must also agree with everything that every other person supporting the same candidate says. In reality if I vote for candidate A over candidate B it means nothing more than that I think overall the package offered by candidate A is a better option. It may mean I believe A is practically the returned Messiah and B is practically the antichrist incarnate; it might equally mean I agree with 51% of what A says and 48% of what B says, so opt for A on balance. It might also mean I agree with 6% of what A says but only 2% of what B says and I'm voting for the lesser of two evils.

 

[tango]

Yes, I do not expect to cause a person to lose their faith, I only expect that they will concede that as an atheist, my position does not require faith, that my lack of belief is not somehow a religion unto itself, or worse, that I have to prove there is no God when in fact I have never said that, nor will I ever. I also expect that we should be able to agree that statements based on faith cannot be given as fact. They can be given as reasons for other beliefs, but not as facts.

Correct me if I'm wrong here Mark, I recall from another discussion that your stance as "atheist" represents a lack of belief in any deities rather than an active belief in the non-existence of deities? In other words you're saying "I don't believe God exists" rather than "I believe God does not exist"?

 

[seekingsolace]

Arguably atheists believe in nature as the supreme being of their fate.

 

[MarkFL]

Correct me if I'm wrong here Mark, I recall from another discussion that your stance as "atheist" represents a lack of belief in any deities rather than an active belief in the non-existence of deities? In other words you're saying "I don't believe God exists" rather than "I believe God does not exist"?

Correct, I am an agnostic atheist...my stance is that I don't have enough evidence to say anything at all about the supernatural. And because of this lack of evidence, I do not believe in the supernatural. Now, if you were to ask me if I believe that Leprechauns exist, I would say no, they do not exist. Why? Because there is no evidence. So, I see the dichotomy in my own stance, and I suppose I justify the difference to myself by saying billions of people do not worship Leprechauns.

 

[MarkFL]

Arguably atheists believe in nature as the supreme being of their fate.

No atheists I know believe in nature as a supreme being.

 

[seekingsolace]

No atheists I know believe in nature as a supreme being.

What do you believe is the originator, and the final determiner of life and the universe as we know it?

 

[MarkFL]

What do you believe is the originator, and the final determiner of life and the universe as we know it?

I believe that natural laws govern the way matter behaves, and that the origin of life here on Earth will eventually be understood to be a consequence of chemistry. Great progress is being made along those lines already. The ultimate fate of the universe is being explored by cosmologists. In a universe that is expanding at an accelerating rate, it would seem that that fate would most likely be a heat death.

There is no compelling reason for me to think any of this is intelligently guided. For me, the most desirable course of action is to watch as the theories unfold and the data accumulates and we get closer and closer to the truth through evidence and reasoning.