Are debates useful?

[Jericho Z. Barrons]

How do you personally feel about public debates between people? Like, religious, political, youtubers, pundits, etc. And I'm talking about official debates, like, where the two people agree on a certain time, place, and topic, usually making available an audience in some way(either in a public venue like an auditorium or on a podcast/stream online).

Do you think it is useful to watch these? Do you think it is useful to participate in them?

I'm divided. On the one hand, I like to hear ideas challenged, especially ideas I support and not only hear how they are defended but also to think through my own defense of those ideas. But on the other hand, I don't find such a format of discourse to be useful because it can become a bit like a popularity contest, deciding who "won" the debate. And the audience isn't really going to be convinced by the side they don't already support. They'll kind of see what they want to see.

A little story. So, I used to be a Christian conservative as late as August 2020. I was a big fan of Jordan Peterson, Sargon of Akkad, Ben Shapiro, etc. as their views lined up with my values and the things I put focus and importance on in my life. A few years ago, I watched this debate between Matt Dillahunty and Jordan Peterson. At the time, fully fanboying for Peterson, I interpreted the debate as going in Peterson's favour. He won and Dillahunty was a fool who didn't see the bigger picture of why god is important and he was even a bit rude and angry it seemed.

Fast forward to the beginning of this year. After a harrowing faith crisis that lasted 4-6 months, I have become a secular humanist and an atheist. Funny thing happened just in time for the election last November, in letting go of god and religion, my views and my values had changed drastically heavily leaning left and progressive. At this point, there's not a whole lot that my past self pre-August 2020 and the me who exists now would agree on. Anyway, I rewatched that exact debate earlier this year and my perception of it had completely changed. Not only did I see Dillahunty's points as more cogent and ratioinal, based on empirical reality, but Peterson appeared weak, floundering, unable to stay on topic or make a valid point.

Whether you like either man or agree with them is not the point. I want to focus on the bizarre and surreal nature of audience perception in a debate and what this says about the value and purpose of two figures debating about polarizing issues.

In your opinion, is public debate valuable?

What is the purpose of two people debating in this manner?

Do you feel like it reasonably achieves that purpose?

What value do you personally get from watching/participating in these kinds of organized debates?

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

 

[Arclight1988]

I think your particular issue is confirmation basis, it's easier to agree with someone who is pushing your ideas, than it is accepting the better argument.

That is not a dis, or in anyway a bad thing we are all guilty of it, but when you notice it. I find it allows you to take a better approach to an issue.

Public debate is valuable, but one must understand, and feel both parties are being both genuine as well as putting forth their ideals for you to take in, and consider with the counterpoints. Most issues are not as simple as one side is right, and one side is wrong when you try to understand the opposition position.

A good moderator can make or break a debate, but rarely do we get good moderators as they tend to already be on one side or the other which can make it a failure of a debate tainting the reflection part.

The best take away from a debate may be a new point of view that even if you disagree with can give you a better understanding of the other side of an issue. Something to think about even if you are sure one side is better you can understand and hopefully not hate or dislike your opposition in discussions.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

I honestly don't know. I think that debate has been historically useful but I don't think it is the modern era. Possibly because of the internet and social media.

This is the most divisive time in human history for the western world. That might sound absurd but as someone who fairly well studied there has never been a period that has been so odd.

Obviously, we've been through two world wars but those two conflicts were relatively easy to understand. World War Two can essentially be broken up into four parts. You have representative democracy represented by the allies (The United Kingdom, Canada, France, The United States, Australia, and several other allies.), Fascism represented by the axis (Italy, Japan, Germany), Communism represented by the Soviet Union and Its allies and then a number of neutral states.

It's obviously more complicated and there are a lot more minutiae to it but that's the general overview one needs to understand World War Two. The conflict we find ourselves in today is inexplicable in its scope. Without getting too controversial, Western society no longer has a universal definition of what a woman is.

We've taken a very tangible concept and turned it into an ethereal one that is almost impossible to grasp due to its irresolute nature.

There's also an incredible lack of trust between individuals. People don't take each other at face value anymore. There is always an innate bias in any subject a person speaks of. Everything has become politicized and everything even the most historically rigid concepts is now seen as imperfect.

How do you have an efficient debate when the very nature of language is combative and antagonistic? You can't.

I don't think that debate is useful any, I think that it was useful and I wonder how we can go back to a time where that was the case. I think a lot of people wonder that. A lot of people wonder how we pull ourselves back from this culture war that we've found ourselves in and nobody seems to have a good answer for it.

Part of the problem is that there is a lot of people who don't want to admit that there's a problem. They see this as normal or a minor diversion on the way to a more important point but I don't know how you ever get to where you want to go if you can't stop fighting everyone.

 

[Arclight1988]

I honestly don't know. I think that debate has been historically useful but I don't think it is the modern era. Possibly because of the internet and social media.

This is the most divisive time in human history for the western world. That might sound absurd but as someone who fairly well studied there has never been a period that has been so odd.

Obviously, we've been through two world wars but those two conflicts were relatively easy to understand. World War Two can essentially be broken up into four parts. You have representative democracy represented by the allies (The United Kingdom, Canada, France, The United States, Australia, and several other allies.), Fascism represented by the axis (Italy, Japan, Germany), Communism represented by the Soviet Union and Its allies and then a number of neutral states.

It's obviously more complicated and there are a lot more minutiae to it but that's the general overview one needs to understand World War Two. The conflict we find ourselves in today is inexplicable in its scope. Without getting too controversial, Western society no longer has a universal definition of what a woman is.

We've taken a very tangible concept and turned it into an ethereal one that is almost impossible to grasp due to its irresolute nature.

There's also an incredible lack of trust between individuals. People don't take each other at face value anymore. There is always an innate bias in any subject a person speaks of. Everything has become politicized and everything even the most historically rigid concepts is now seen as imperfect.

How do you have an efficient debate when the very nature of language is combative and antagonistic? You can't.

I don't think that debate is useful any, I think that it was useful and I wonder how we can go back to a time where that was the case. I think a lot of people wonder that. A lot of people wonder how we pull ourselves back from this culture war that we've found ourselves in and nobody seems to have a good answer for it.

Part of the problem is that there is a lot of people who don't want to admit that there's a problem. They see this as normal or a minor diversion on the way to a more important point but I don't know how you ever get to where you want to go if you can't stop fighting everyone.

I highly disagree with you that modern day is any different from the past, the difference is in the new age there is an abundance of information, and plenty willing to lie to make their side sound more appealing as long as you do not explore the material yourself. Though how much of history do we know if those same actors were able to scrub info before it got to the masses? The lines of History is written by the victors is not wrong, and everyone sees their side as the correct one. Very few are willing to consider they are wrong or even that the other side might have a good reason or argument if you give it a chance.

As we move to violence over words is where I fear what is to come. People who claim their opponents can only be liars, fools, or Nazi's anything to discredit the person, and not the argument you can see a failure there, and to someone like me that very position becomes more interesting. If your excuse to attack a person is they have horrible views, but can rebut their argument that is a failure on only one side.

 

[Jericho Z. Barrons]

I think your particular issue is confirmation basis, it's easier to agree with someone who is pushing your ideas, than it is accepting the better argument.

That is not a dis, or in anyway a bad thing we are all guilty of it, but when you notice it. I find it allows you to take a better approach to an issue.

Public debate is valuable, but one must understand, and feel both parties are being both genuine as well as putting forth their ideals for you to take in, and consider with the counterpoints. Most issues are not as simple as one side is right, and one side is wrong when you try to understand the opposition position.

A good moderator can make or break a debate, but rarely do we get good moderators as they tend to already be on one side or the other which can make it a failure of a debate tainting the reflection part.

The best take away from a debate may be a new point of view that even if you disagree with can give you a better understanding of the other side of an issue. Something to think about even if you are sure one side is better you can understand and hopefully not hate or dislike your opposition in discussions.

Yes! That is what I was thinking of. Confirmation bias. I know we all sort of have it but it was a bizarre sensation to rewatch a debate I'd seen already and see it through different eyes.

I think what we're both getting at is if someone in the audience watches a debate with an open and critical mind, where they can see what is happening on both sides and analyze it rationally, it can have value for them learning from the experience. I guess my questions on this are rooted in cynicism, watching people for the most part treat debates as entertainment, akin to wrestling or a sports match, rather than an intellectual exercise to grow from.

 

[Arclight1988]

Yes! That is what I was thinking of. Confirmation bias. I know we all sort of have it but it was a bizarre sensation to rewatch a debate I'd seen already and see it through different eyes.

I think what we're both getting at is if someone in the audience watches a debate with an open and critical mind, where they can see what is happening on both sides and analyze it rationally, it can have value for them learning from the experience. I guess my questions on this are rooted in cynicism, watching people for the most part treat debates as entertainment, akin to wrestling or a sports match, rather than an intellectual exercise to grow from.

Debates used to be an exercise for those who wished to expand their reasoning skills. This is often abandoned and allows people to just throw flags for their team. Yet, I often doubt this is something that can be avoided we all create tribes if you are willing to call out both sides you will find yourself with few friends to support you.

I lose friends all the time pointing out fake stories attacking the right, and then have to point out the stupidity of tossing off some of the lefts ideas with abandon. So I rarely speak up as in a way the masses will win even if their argument is foolish. (Think of the regular German during Nazi times it was easier to agree with what was perceived as a good for the country than face the masses in defiance.) Even if a wrong idea is pushed forward this is little that can be done you can try to spread ideas, but that is a tall order.

With that being said you can decide you have lost the fight, and just go along to get along or keep your mind always reaching out for more. I prefer to listen to ideals, and pick and choose from both sides what I think leads to the better future if I can't convince people or lose at least I did what I could, and to me that is enough.

 

[Sync]

Debates are very useful - provided all parties agree and adhere to a set of common courtesies and "rules of engagement" beforehand.

Unfortunately, in today's society there are folks in all walks who are all too happy to be "offended" by something another person said, and who are then are equally-happy to simply fly off the handle (so to speak) instead of engaging in a reasoned and calm discussion around the allegedly-offensive remark/comment/idea.

It's where the nebulous-term "silent majority" can sometimes be pointed: at those folks who don't bother engaging in debates because they don't particularly want to risk dealing with any potential drama.

 

[Megara23]

Debates are useful if both sides respect each other and are open to discussion....otherwise they're a waste of time. I was taught in high school there's no winning in most debates, it's about sharing ideas and accepting you're not there to win, you are there to convey your ideas, winning is a happy happenstance. I'd rather lose a thousand debates honestly giving them my all, than win a debate dishonestly or give half hearted arguments.

However Debate in modern times has turned into a screaming match between two sides who don't respect each other.

 

[Nihilistic_Impact]

I've been reading a lot of posts commenting about the need for civility and mutual respect; but I think that's bullshit. I honestly believe that those that most ardently expose such nonsense are the least likely to follow through with it. Complaining about form is a refuge for those that can not handle their ideas confronted.

Debates is useful and always will be; but you have to realize what the ultimate goal of them is. It is not to convince the diehards you're debating or their fans of your position; but those on the edges. There is no changing someone's mind with just debate if those convictions are strongly held. Instead you want to plant seeds in people's minds so they'll do their own research and come to your conclusion organically.

And as a former participant in debate in school, that's even more bullshit.

 

[Sync]

I've been reading a lot of posts commenting about the need for civility and mutual respect; but I think that's bullshit. I honestly believe that those that most ardently expose such nonsense are the least likely to follow through with it. Complaining about form is a refuge for those that can not handle their ideas confronted.

Debates is useful and always will be; but you have to realize what the ultimate goal of them is. It is not to convince the diehards you're debating or their fans of your position; but those on the edges. There is no changing someone's mind with just debate if those convictions are strongly held. Instead you want to plant seeds in people's minds so they'll do their own research and come to your conclusion organically.

And as a former participant in debate in school, that's even more bullshit.

If you're the sort who allows for debates to turn into yelling matches, then you're part of the reason we don't/can't have civilised debates any more.

You say that the desire for civility and respect is "bullshit"...? Tell me when screaming incoherently at someone changed their mind.

 

[Nihilistic_Impact]

Atheist debates a creationist, why? Well if they're both not grifting for money it's to convince people on the edges. Why should an atheist respect the arguments a creation makes? Why the creation an atheists? The simple fact is that they do no respect one another's positions.

Respect can be good when the degrees of differences are narrow so groups don't fall into circular firing squads; but it is not a paramount feature in all debate.

And shouting, well good. I like people to be invested in what they have to say. It at least means they have conviction. But if you feel that you can only fall into incoherence when you raise your voice, then I guess you better flee another thread complaining about a lack of civility.

So I reiterate that the importance that people are placing on the tone and decorum of debate are people who fail to understand the purpose of debate and instead just care about the form and not the function. I weep for such bloodless people who lack passion of will.

 

[Sync]

And shouting, well good. I like people to be invested in what they have to say. It at least means they have conviction. But if you feel that you can only fall into incoherence when you raise your voice, then I guess you better flee another thread complaining about a lack of civility.

People can debate well, can be invested in their beliefs and values, without resorting to shouting and trolling. Note the highlighting is mine, where you are, again, demonstrating that you cannot do so.

 

[LifeInterrupted]

If talking about politicians then obviously they will swear they are right even if the aren't. I find the lack of common ground alarming most of the time. In regards to debates on sites like this between members, again people tend to just stand their ground regardless of whether they are right or wrong.

Overall it is kind of pointless.

 

[Nihilistic_Impact]

Oh I know people can do that. I just don't think you can.

Because if all you can do is say I was mean to you, well that's tone policing and just goes to favor my argument about how it's not an important feature of debate since it does nothing to promote an exchange of ideas; but instead shuts down the discussion. It is a refuge for those who have no argument.

Which is what you have since all you've done is restate your original position. I have given examples where mutual respect would not matter, I have put forth a theory of debate where winning has nothing to do with convincing the other party; but observers in the crowd.

What have you done but complain about form? You have failed to honestly engage with what I have said and instead attack the form of it. This has just been a repetition of prior behaviors.

 

[Arclight1988]

Oh I know people can do that. I just don't think you can.

Because if all you can do is say I was mean to you, well that's tone policing and just goes to favor my argument about how it's not an important feature of debate since it does nothing to promote an exchange of ideas; but instead shuts down the discussion. It is a refuge for those who have no argument.

Which is what you have since all you've done is restate your original position. I have given examples where mutual respect would not matter, I have put forth a theory of debate where winning has nothing to do with convincing the other party; but observers in the crowd.

What have you done but complain about form? You have failed to honestly engage with what I have said and instead attack the form of it. This has just been a repetition of prior behaviors.

Well in the atheist vs creationist usually the most interesting thing I find discussed is often the base of morality, but that is neither here nor there as to the issues of civility in a debate...

The reason at least some good will is needed you only need to watch the US 'debates' between those of the same party. If the Moderator has picked a side in most of those things it goes off the rails giving some members less time in a limited form, and sometimes making sure others do not get a voice.

As for if between two people if you are unwilling to be civil, and shout over your opponent not allowing them to speak, and again a poor mod allowing for such actions it becomes almost like a faux lecture not a debate. Losing any semblance of a discussion of ideas.

These issue are either defeated by someone willing to take the stage back either by charisma or a good mod setting the room to allow for such civilities. Though this is not always the case if you are staring down a hostile crowd, with a hostile mod, and a hostile opponents speaking beliefs with all the data in the would will not save you.

Tactics such as having a mean tone will often throw off a conversation as most people are polite, and do not want to work which is why often the best of those at debating have a level constant tone with slight deviation when empassioned, but rarely being rude as such bulling behavior was often frowned upon despite several historical figures using it to great success.

Hope this comes out coherent getting ready for sleep.

 

[LifeInterrupted]

A couple of things I find interesting with online debates;

One side will often say "You made the statement, it is up to you to prove it" or words to that effect. This will only apply to one side, never the side who says that and has also made statements of their own.

Religious debates: As far as I am concerned neither Atheist or Believer can prove they are right. Invariably as per above observation, it is only the Believer who is expected to prove it though. The Atheist sits back and believes they have nothing to prove.

 

[Arclight1988]

A couple of things I find interesting with online debates;

One side will often say "You made the statement, it is up to you to prove it" or words to that effect. This will only apply to one side, never the side who says that and has also made statements of their own.

Religious debates: As far as I am concerned neither Atheist or Believer can prove they are right. Invariably as per above observation, it is only the Believer who is expected to prove it though. The Atheist sits back and believes they have nothing to prove.

Okay I kinda get your point, but the argument of an atheist having to prove nothing is because essential to the belief that the world is what it is there is no spiritual aspect believed so that makes it hard, but that is only someone who sucks at a debate as the Atheistic argument is often the big bang, puddle theory, evolution/co-evolution luck-vastness of space, and a few things we are to young a species to understand. While creationist often replace unknown catalysts as the work of God, the shelter of earth from a human standpoint as foresight with omnipresence, and things like Heaven, and Hell as things of the spirit, and not flesh where an Atheist might make the claim of higher dimensions we just currently understand as well as so forth.

No argument can stand as I say it, and don't have my feet put to the flame so to speak when questioned.

 

[Jericho Z. Barrons]

It has to do with the burden of proof. The one making the positive claim is the one who needs to bring evidence to support it. If an atheist says "there is no god" then that is a positive claim and they would need to back it up with evidence. However, atheism is simply a lack of belief in god and can be gnostic(hard; there is no god) or agnostic(soft; I am unconvinced by the claims that there is a god(s) but am open to evidence presenting otherwise).

As an agnostic atheist, I say that I am unconvinced by god claims. I don't have to provide evidence for not being convinced to believe in something. It is up to the ones making the claim that a god exists to provide evidence that will support it. At least if we're in a discussion and you want me, an atheist, to accept the truth in what you're saying.

If you ask me "do you believe ___?" and I say "no", it's not the same as saying "it doesn't exist".

 

[LifeInterrupted]

It has to do with the burden of proof. The one making the positive claim is the one who needs to bring evidence to support it. If an atheist says "there is no god" then that is a positive claim and they would need to back it up with evidence. However, atheism is simply a lack of belief in god and can be gnostic(hard; there is no god) or agnostic(soft; I am unconvinced by the claims that there is a god(s) but am open to evidence presenting otherwise).

As an agnostic atheist, I say that I am unconvinced by god claims. I don't have to provide evidence for not being convinced to believe in something. It is up to the ones making the claim that a god exists to provide evidence that will support it. At least if we're in a discussion and you want me, an atheist, to accept the truth in what you're saying.

If you ask me "do you believe ___?" and I say "no", it's not the same as saying "it doesn't exist".

Yeah I still have a problem just accepting that. In a debate you are trying to convince someone you are correct. So if you say "There is no God" then prove there isn't one.

It's like someone saying (especially in a debate) "I don't believe in Global Climate Change" by your rules that is all they would need to say. But they are expected to back up their claims with evidence. Seems to be shifting rules with all of this depending on the topic, the forum and what the general politics/beliefs tend to be.

 

[Jericho Z. Barrons]

Yeah I still have a problem just accepting that. In a debate you are trying to convince someone you are correct. So if you say "There is no God" then prove there isn't one.

Yes. That is what I just said. "There is no god" is a positive claim and requires evidence to back it up.

"I don't believe in Your claim that there is a god" doesn't require proof. It is me stating that someone else has made a claim that I am not convinced by. I am the one who needs more evidence provided in order to move me to accept the claim as true.

As I stated "I don't believe in god" is NOT the same as "there is no god".

It's like someone saying (especially in a debate) "I don't believe in Global Climate Change" by your rules that is all they would need to say. But they are expected to back up their claims with evidence. Seems to be shifting rules with all of this depending on the topic, the forum and what the general politics/beliefs tend to be.

If someone says they don't believe in climate change, what are they claiming that they need to provide evidence for? That they don't believe it? How do they prove that? They're not saying climate change isn't real, they are saying they haven't heard of/seen evidence that climate change is real. So, it would be up to those who support the theory of climate change to provide the information and evidence to convince them.

 

[LifeInterrupted]

Yes. That is what I just said. "There is no god" is a positive claim and requires evidence to back it up.

"I don't believe in Your claim that there is a god" doesn't require proof. It is me stating that someone else has made a claim that I am not convinced by. I am the one who needs more evidence provided in order to move me to accept the claim as true.

As I stated "I don't believe in god" is NOT the same as "there is no god".



If someone says they don't believe in climate change, what are they claiming that they need to provide evidence for? That they don't believe it? How do they prove that? They're not saying climate change isn't real, they are saying they haven't heard of/seen evidence that climate change is real. So, it would be up to those who support the theory of climate change to provide the information and evidence to convince them.

I still disagree. I also see the "rules" shifting in regards to your theory all the time. The other thing people do is enact the whole Disinformation thing so the person who is expected to provide evidence and the one who isn't just sits back and negates it all.

Overall it is why I avoid debates as it is a bottomless pit of trolling and futility.

 

[Arclight1988]

I still disagree. I also see the "rules" shifting in regards to your theory all the time. The other thing people do is enact the whole Disinformation thing so the person who is expected to provide evidence and the one who isn't just sits back and negates it all.

Overall it is why I avoid debates as it is a bottomless pit of trolling and futility.

It really is not fair to ask someone to prove something does not exist, if you can not prove something does. This also is one of the flaws of how most people see debates. Neither side really is supposed to win. Each side puts forth their ideals, and the take away is to expand your mind in both areas, then decide for yourself which you have favor towards.

 

[LifeInterrupted]

It really is not fair to ask someone to prove something does not exist, if you can not prove something does. This also is one of the flaws of how most people see debates. Neither side really is supposed to win. Each side puts forth their ideals, and the take away is to expand your mind in both areas, then decide for yourself which you have favor towards.

Then it is quite pointless and also rather stupid for the person claiming it doesn't exist to assume they are right when they cannot prove the non existence of whatever they are refuting.

 

[Arclight1988]

Then it is quite pointless and also rather stupid for the person claiming it doesn't exist to assume they are right when they cannot prove the non existence of whatever they are refuting.

This goes back to my point of debates are not something to be won.

One side gives their opinions, and research for there is, and the other side either refutes points, or gives alternate reasons there is not. The listener then can choose which side they believe after consideration especially for the abstract of religion.

Something with hard data, like climate change is a little easier, and still has difficulty which is why it is often a feature of ongoing debates.

 

[LifeInterrupted]

This goes back to my point of debates are not something to be won.

One side gives their opinions, and research for there is, and the other side either refutes points, or gives alternate reasons there is not. The listener then can choose which side they believe after consideration especially for the abstract of religion.

Something with hard data, like climate change is a little easier, and still has difficulty which is why it is often a feature of ongoing debates.

But they are not conducted in that way. They usually end up in name calling and warnings from moderators.