Internet Debates vs Real Life Debates

[BLADE]

I have to chime in with respect to the adversarial nature of debates. If there is a disagreement, by definition someone is advocating a moral vision that is different than yours. Depending on the severity of the difference and the fervor with which one believes in said principles, one is more than justified in using all reasonable (and logically congruent) methods of advocating for his cause. There's a very thin line between a discussion and a debate, and often the two overlap.

Insofar as "winning," barring certain formats (dialectics, etc.) there's always a form of competition hardwired into discussion. Conversion presumes the superiority of one's idea(s), and so forth.

I personally think the point is being inartfully advanced. The real question advanced seems to be one of civility and how much should be employed based on different situations. There the paradigm is really based more on emotional intelligence and the old animal impulses that have been baked into us by millions of years of evolution, and not something as recursive and rigid as logic. My own view is that civility is frankly overrated in an argument, at least in the way that people conceptualize it. True civility is refraining from unreasonable lapses in logic and reasoning and presenting an intellectually honest case.

But that's just me.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

could be. i just have a hard time discerning intrinsic value in anything. either everything has value or nothing does, or there is some secret council i haven't heard of who decides where to draw the line.

i wish i could reason it, i just can't.

Fair enough. While I can't understand it per say, in the sense that I can't fathom seeing things like that only in black and white terms, that's certainly enlightening in regards to understanding where your point of view is coming from.

 

[Ehrlich Mar]

Originally Posted by Earlich Mar
I think that's a very...well, shall we say "considerate" standpoint. I mean, it's great that you're not trying to shape people into a replica of yourself. I guess the only thing that troubles me is that a debate shouldn't be an attack, if you understand my meaning. People shouldn't be called to "defend" their positions so much as explain them. When I'm in a discussion, I shouldn't feel pressured to win; if I lose, it should be because I had failed somewhere along the line in my reasoning or that I was misinformed, not that I was badgered into submission.

In any case, I feel like there is a responsibility as a human being to share what I've learned for the benefit of others. It's just a courtesy that one shows; if I have discovered something that will positively impact someone else's life, I have a moral responsibility to see that it is accessible to them, provided I have their best interest at heart. So even if one feels like one has nothing to gain from the conversation, it is still worthwhile provided that one has something to give.

You raise an interesting point there. On the one hand, the idea of defending your argument is not a bad thing and is not irreconcilable with what you just said. It depends on how you’re using the word defend. If you’re using it in the sense that you need to back up and justify what you’re saying, then that’s good. You can’t just make a claim without justifying it in a conversation like this. If you’re feeling pressured to defend yourself, though, and you feel the need to defend against what seems like an attack (civil or otherwise), then that by default means that someone is on offense. If someone is on offense, then by default that means you are now in a discussion where at least one person has decided that the goal is to win.

When I wrote that, it did occur to me that the weak word I included was "defend." It was shamelessly vague. So to clarify, you're correct; everyone should be able to give an account as to why they believe something if one is looking at an issue logically. I was in fact referring to defense in the sense that one is no longer justifying one's belief in the thing, but rather is trying to prove himself right. It's the motive of the defense, and not the action itself, to which I was trying to allude.

 

[Icaro]

Fair enough. While I can't understand it per say, in the sense that I can't fathom seeing things like that only in black and white terms, that's certainly enlightening in regards to understanding where your point of view is coming from.

it's not black and white, per say. it's more that in my mind, i can't make myself believe that there is intrinsic value in everything, i just can't bring myself to believe that. because if that were true, there would be value in the most detestable of things, which surely can't be the case. so if there isn't value in everything then that means there must be value in some things and not in others. i'm certainly not the authority on what has and what does not have value, i don't have that sort of self-important stance. so where do we draw the line? we can't.

just so happens i would rather live in a world where nothing has intrinsic value than one where everything does.

that doesn't mean to say there isn't practical value in things. murder for instance, while there's no greater intrinsic moral ethical presupposition to it being 'wrong', it harms society as a whole, and is therefore impractical to the general well-being of continued civilized existence. just so happens not every negative act does have a practical ramification on that greater preservation. so in the end i would rather just live and let live.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

it's not black and white, per say. it's more that in my mind, i can't make myself believe that there is intrinsic value in everything, i just can't bring myself to believe that. because if that were true, there would be value in the most detestable of things, which surely can't be the case. so if there isn't value in everything then that means there must be value in some things and not in others. i'm certainly not the authority on what has and what does not have value, i don't have that sort of self-important stance. so where do we draw the line? we can't.

just so happens i would rather live in a world where nothing has intrinsic value than one where everything does.

that doesn't mean to say there isn't practical value in things. murder for instance, while there's no greater intrinsic moral ethical presupposition to it being 'wrong', it harms society as a whole, and is therefore impractical to the general well-being of continued civilized existence. just so happens not every negative act does have a practical ramification on that greater preservation. so in the end i would rather just live and let live.

Well, obviously not everything has value. If I were to go to your house and murder you right now, there would be no value in that. Yet, internet discussions aren’t murder. They’re not amongst the most detestable of things. If done properly, they’re an exchange of ideas, whereby you will learn something you didn’t know or somehow grow as a free thinking human being. That’s value. Sure, there’s no value if the conversation is two idiots jumping up and down screaming “YOU BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE YOU’RE LIKE HITLER OMG!”

That’s not what this conversation is, though. I’m learning something about you, specifically your worldview in regards to value. Surely you are not the only person that I’ll know in this lifetime who has these views. You’re the first that I know of, but undoubtedly the last. The next time I speak to someone who shares this view, I’ll have a greater understanding of it from the outset because I learned about it this time. I can go into that next conversation with a bit more intelligence in regards to the other side’s opinion.

That’s value, and it came from an internet discussion.

For you, you’re in a situation now where your belief in this regard is being challenged. They are being challenged by people who you don’t know now, nor will you ever, in real life. Earlier in this thread, you suggested such a conversation was stupid. Yet, here you are. Does that make you stupid? No, not at all. What it does mean for you, however, is that your belief was challenged enough in a way that at least somewhat piqued your interest that you chose to respond—despite heretofore having believed that to do so was, quote, pathetic.

What will be the outcome of that change for you? There are two likely answers, in my estimation. The first is that your belief will be reinforced because of your time spent considering and saying your argument to others. You will feel more confident in that belief because you took the time to truly consider if that is what you believed. The second is that you will change your mind, and you will come to the conclusion that what those such as Prospero and I are saying about value is correct.

I don’t know which one will happen, but I’m certain one of the two will. Either way, you will have had intellectual growth, because you will have a better understanding of, appreciation of, and ability to state that which you believe—whatever that belief may be.

That’s value, and it came from an internet discussion.

 

[Icaro]

i'm not so much changed either way by this discussion,i'm no more or less secure in my position than i was yesterday.

there may be value you've derived from this, but it's still not intrinsically valuable in my worldview, mostly because i still can't reason your greater understanding as such. and that's where i'm coming from.

good talk though. thanks for listening past the initial statement, hope you understand a little bit more what presupposes my position when i say a lot of stuff.

 

[Ehrlich Mar]

I have to chime in with respect to the adversarial nature of debates. If there is a disagreement, by definition someone is advocating a moral vision that is different than yours. Depending on the severity of the difference and the fervor with which one believes in said principles, one is more than justified in using all reasonable (and logically congruent) methods of advocating for his cause. There's a very thin line between a discussion and a debate, and often the two overlap.

Insofar as "winning," barring certain formats (dialectics, etc.) there's always a form of competition hardwired into discussion. Conversion presumes the superiority of one's idea(s), and so forth.

That's an interesting idea, though I don't necessarily agree. The very fact that someone would deliberately avoid expressing his/her views in such a way as to cause another person to doubt their own is a sign that people can short-circuit the notion that somebody has to be victorious, at least for the duration of a conversation. Furthermore, I have never actually heard evidence for the idea that the exchange of thoughts and beliefs necessitates that one side be more correct than the other; only when two beliefs are in direct contradiction to one another must one of them be wrong by default. (On a side note, if you happen to have any, do please tell me where to find it; I'd love to read more about it.)

If there IS a competition in which I would like to partake in every useful conversation, it is that I outdo my fellow debater in clearly and concisely conveying what it is that I mean and that I interpret their intended message as close to their original design as is possible.

That being said, as far as I am concerned, you win. :CHappy Kudos and g'night.

 

[Wit]

As I see it there are benefits to both internet and RL debates. Personally for me, there are many topics that I can only talk about on the internet or at best over the phone. It is not a matter of being ashamed of my point of views or not being able to support them, its simply the fact that a vast majority of the people around me just don't share that view. Most of the year I live in a hostel facility where a large percentage of people have views and interests that are drastically different from mine. A lack of interest on theri parts normally tends to shift the discussion onto other topics. For example I remember some time last year there was an article in the papers regarding a gay couple that raised an discussion about whether gay marriages should be made legal. It turned out that out of the nine or ten people sitting on the table I was the only one in support of gay marriages. In the end some of them were so strongly homophobic that they simply started raging and left. Seeing any further arguments with them to be pointless at the time I ended up just letting it go and we ended up talking about something else. I have had some very interesting discussions on a wide variety of topics with those very same people and I know them to be capable of making very well thought out and insightful arguments. But on things such as these I just can't hold a long and calm discussion with them without it descending into a shouting match. But on the other hand the discussions that I do have with them are more interesting as I know the people involved on a personal level and know where they are coming from and at times can understand what might have made them come to a particular conclusion without them having to explain themselves.

 

[Cailst]

tl;dr - nothing wrong with debating the validity of someone’s opinion if you don’t think that their opinion is valid. Whether it changes someone's mind or not doesn't really matter. What matters is that the exchange of ideas and opinions took place. Challenges to what we believe are the only way that we grow intellectually.

And rarely have I see many people change their opinions based on one discussion. However, both sides get to see a gamut of different viewpoints shown in various discussions. Over time, perhaps through seeing discussions of different topics, people might change their minds as they connect more dots and come to a greater understanding of the topic. Though even the, they might not go in the direction of their opponent.

Another thing that benefits me is that I’m really good with words. If given the time to construct an argument, I know how to use words to my advantage. I can write things in particular ways that can mean the same thing that someone else might have meant, but are said in such a way where they seem to carry more weight and gravitas. That can strengthen my argument without any real substantive difference.

Darn you and your fluffy gravitas! :CStern

Other people who agree with you may bring up points that strengthen your argument that you didn’t even think of. That allows for a learning opportunity for you as well, and it’s almost like an unofficial team debate. It’s the closest thing to a community discussion than most people experience. Granted, that doesn’t work for everyone. If the point you’re arguing is that homosexuality is a sin and that gay marriage should be illegal, then most people on this site are going to descend upon you with the fury of God’s own thunder (or, if you're Sheo, the power of Thor's hammer). You reap what you sew in that regard, so you have to be prepared for the possibility that people aren’t going to agree with you and may be incredibly, passionately resistant to what you're saying.

So for a tl;dr, both real life debating and online debating have their merits if you know what you’re doing.

And being on the minority side of it can be fun as well. While you don't see many arguments in support of you espoused by other people, you get to see a ton of arguments against you and get all the debating you want. I remember a few times on here where I'd be arguing against someone and if I had lots of time on my hands, I might see that person leave and see another person pick up the slack in arguing against me.

Also, unlike real life when you are on the minority side, you don't have to worry as much about being talked down by really passionate supporters of the other side and social exclusion is less likely. The worst problem you might have online is someone saying that you represent oppression or something like that. Maybe Bac calling you a doo doo head(though that happens more in the OOC section).

 

[jpchewy01]

You all are oldthinkers. Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc. Topic of talk unexist in Newspeak. Topic of discussion is doubleplusbad and thoughtcrime. Some here understand doublethink, but embrace it. Fear doublethink and oldthink. Unallows you to bellyfeel Ingsoc. Join the Party. Help the Revolution. Big Brother is doubleplusgood.

 

[BLADE]

You all are oldthinkers. Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc. Topic of talk unexist in Newspeak. Topic of discussion is doubleplusbad and thoughtcrime. Some here understand doublethink, but embrace it. Fear doublethink and oldthink. Unallows you to bellyfeel Ingsoc. Join the Party. Help the Revolution. Big Brother is doubleplusgood.

If you want a picture of the future, imagine Prospero's boot, stamping on SWRP's face. Forever. *


*Join today and get a commemorative mug!

 

[jpchewy01]

If you want a picture of the future, imagine Prospero's boot, stamping on SWRP's face. Forever. *


*Join today and get a commemorative mug!

I'm in as long as I get a high ranking position in your new regime.:CSly

And can I at least get some props for constructing an entire post in Newspeak? That was really tough!

 

[Horizon]

Talking about debates while having a debate.

Sounds nice.

 

[jpchewy01]

Talking about debates while having a debate.

Sounds nice.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Talking about debates while having a debate.

Sounds nice.

Debate INCEPTION

 

[Green Ranger]

We have to go down another two debate levels before we send the firemen in.