The nature of debate

[narcasse]

Building on this, this and a growing number of insipid encounters, today I’d like to address the question of discussion and debate. Namely, why it occurs, for the morons out there who really don’t seem to have a fucking clue as to its purpose.

Debate and discussion by its very nature implies that there is a critical topic to be considered. So the first point that we come to is content. Just like books or films; conversation should have a certain content, people should have a certain content really. I’m not saying that you need to be discussing Chaucer all the time, only that in any discourse you really do expect it to have a point at the end of the day. Monologues have a point, thus dialogues have a point too. Whatever that point may be; it has to actually be present. Nobody, other than lunatics perhaps, has a conversation be it with themselves or someone else, with no particularly reason in mind. Even if the conversation involves only making polite chitchat, the reason for that is very obviously to be polite and civil.
Beyond an essential content that may or may not be articulated directly, there has to be a logic to the framing of it. A rationale as to how the dialogue is constructed. And if you’re going to construct a dialogue which is meant to be active debate the employment of reason really is essential. Otherwise you start to sound like one of those fucking sots who really needs a boot to the head until they either die or stop talking. Whichever comes first. Logic is essential to any progression of argument, even if the logic is obscure or ‘off screen’ so that you may need to be explain to your debating partner just how you made what seem like arbitrary jumps of reason. Without a progressive logical chain of reasoning it’s not a debate at all but rather a series of jumbled and unconnected things that at best prove a diagnosis of apophenia and at worse indicate that you ought to be medicated or supervised for the rest of your natural life.
Articulation should be the third point here but I’ll let that slide because if there’s time, it’s not too much of a problem that you may take a little longer to get to your point than someone else. Of course if it stalls things to the point of incoherency I’d recommend a long sit down with a dictionary to expand upon an evidently lacking vocabulary or possibly elocution lessons. Of course I don’t include issues like stuttering or various speech impediments here at all because while somebody may have a pronounced stutter, that won’t really detract from their articulation of logical thought. It may take them a few seconds longer to say a world or perhaps mean that they might find it quicker to avoid one or two words that create pronunciation problems but that’s hardly going to damage the argument that they’re making. The same goes for differences in accents between conversational partners or the age old issue of different languages.

Thus, having outlined the requirement of content, logic and articulation in debate what I really don’t understand is why so very many people seem to think that, special snowflakes that they are, they can bypass any of this key content. Especially since, leaving the third point as the final touch to getting your point out of your head and into shared communications; the other two are intrinsically linked. Though perhaps that’s the problem. Because considering it, the issue lies not just in clumsy word use but rather in this strange idea that logic alone is the purpose of debate, entirely forgetting that without the foundation of content i.e. an original conception to start with, then you’re doing no better than setting up your mechano castle on shifting sands. It may even sound elaborate to somebody who isn’t really paying attention to what you’re saying or to children who may just be fascinated by an infinite flow of arbitrary sounds but to everybody else it’s really just an affront to basic human tenets of having a damn meaning in the first place.
Which brings me finally to the reason why I’m tying this out at all. I have, most unfortunately, over the years found myself something of a moving target for verbal garbage projectiles. Said verbal garbage being a form of argument that seems quite clearly to have been made in my direction out of a desire on the part of the producer to either fill up silences with inane chatter or in an attempt to be ‘clever’ because they’ve picked up a buzz-word or two at some point during kindergarten and think that it’s somehow relevant. Just because you know what RAM stands for doesn’t make you a CompSci, darling, any more than the misuse of words makes you a discourse theorist. And more than that; it irritates me. Not because debate itself annoys me nor because I’m under some painful delusion that I know everything because I certainly don’t and if I did; I’d be disappointed because I’d have run out of things to learn. But because it’s utterly depressing. Time and time again people seem intent on making stupid mistakes in their ‘argument’ not because they’ve simply missed a point in their chain of reasoning or haven’t considered an angle quite so closely before but because there’s just no fucking reason there beyond seemingly trying to prove that they can talk nonsense and make themselves look like utter fools.
If you genuinely have something to say then please by all means say it, even if you’re not sure if the idea itself is coherent or complete, even if you’re not quite sure you have all the words to argue your point efficiently, even if you think that perhaps it’s just a silly idea. For the love of all that’s unholy; say it, even if you’re disagreeing with me, especially if you’re disagreeing with me because you can see a clear flaw in my argument that I’ve blatantly overlooked. I will of course argue my own point in return and so much the better that we both can stretch the limits of our respective standpoints. And even if I am completely and utterly wrong in my assessment, beyond my grumbling at myself for having been so incorrect, I will be grateful that you’ve taken the time to point it out rather than allow me to labour on under a misconception.

All of which essentially boils down to my saying; goodness, yes, debate, argue, tell me that I’m completely and utterly wrong but only if that’s what you genuinely think and can back that up with the critical employment of reason. Though of course I’m not excluding the fleshing out of alternative arguments just for the beauty of having all bases covered. Otherwise what would be most helpful on that sort of occasion, to your benefit and mine, would be if you could just sit on your hands and shut the fuck up until the urge to embarrass yourself in public passes.


And having just added this post to my LJ info as part of a rules of engagement protocol, I certainly do hope that the rising incidences of idiocy will begin to die down.

Comments

[alucards-bane.livejournal.com]

Why do I feel like this has something to do with me?

I know I'm not the brightest crayon in the box when it comes to arguing and debating on subjects, but I do try to stab at it. ...If I don't have anything much to say, I just reply with something to let you or someone else know that I understand your point and have nothing to add, though that may not be the proper way to go about it. I apologize if I've pissed you off too much, and even if this post isn't pointing all ten fingers and toes at me, I still offer it, knowing that I can't match qualities with you. I'll take my leave now. Thank you.

[reichsfreiherr.livejournal.com]

Don’t be so paranoid.

I don’t recall your ever starting a faux-debate with me in an effort to prove how ‘special’ you are. As long as you’re genuinely commenting or asking a question, I’ve no problem with that. My issue is with the one too many idiots who seem to attempt to piss me off to prove just how ‘sassy’ or ‘speshual’ or whatever other adjective, they are. Genuine discussion is a wonderful thing; fuckwits who seem to have no respect for themselves or others and are simply out to score points are the ones I can’t stand. They tend to have a few chances before I ban them online or simply refuse to acknowledge them elsewhere.

[alucards-bane.livejournal.com]

._. I can't help it, sometimes.

I see. I used to do that, really, but I try not to any more. At least not consciously. I'm glad it was just me being paranoid, though?

[madame-parker.livejournal.com]

I never get into a debate unless I know what I'm talking about and can in fact back up my thoughts and ideas, I can't stand it when people jump into a debate and start talking bullshit, it's bad enough that my own bullshit gives me a headache, I don't need someone else's stupid ideas and thoughts to add to my endless headache.
On that note, I really hope I haven't come off as stupid in any comments I've made, I hate looking stupid in front of others. I will admit that sometimes I lose any talent at typing, in those cases I should be ignored.

[reichsfreiherr.livejournal.com]

That’s good to hear. If only certain people weren’t enamoured of the sound of their own voices and chose to contribute when they actually had something valid to add to a discussion rather than to shout about how little they know, the world would be a much better place for it.
I don’t recall your having said anything particularly ludicrous as yet and typos are of course a failing to which nobody is immune. I’ve been known to lose entire words from sentences on occasion myself.

[7veilsphaedra.livejournal.com]

Is there a debate? I don't experience dialogues as arguments usually, although I suppose they sometimes encompass that as well. For me, it is sort of like, "What kind of filling do you have in your sandwich?"---followed either by "that sounds very tasty" or "I don't know if I could digest that. Maybe, if I try a taste ...."

So my contributions are probably in the inane group, but I don't know how else to learn except to jump in with something that reveals where I'm coming from, which is often times exactly like feeling around in the dark. I hate being ignorant but a person can only evolve from the place where they are. The actual time I can scratch together to read, absorb and put together a thoughtful response is so meager. Most of the time, I leave things unsaid because I know I can't give them justice. I do read, however, and I do think about what I read. So sometimes the very act of responding to a post is only just a fingerprint of acknowledgement, to let you know you've been read and mulled over, and that I'm open to hearing more, maybe learning something new.

[reichsfreiherr.livejournal.com]

There are plenty of debates and discussions about; I wasn’t focusing on any particular one. And being unsure of your sandwich filing is somewhat different to commenting on it’s nutritional value with some component ratios that you’ve just made up yourself.

Granted nobody can be expected to have all of the information all of the time but I’m under no great obligation to educate them if they don’t already posses the general knowledge to discuss something even on a basic level. Especially when they are deliberately ignoring the actual details of the debate and instead trying to start a schoolyard squabble based entirely on their refusal to do any of the pertinent research themselves.
I’ve had no trouble with your comments so far precisely because everything you’ve said is intended to contribute rather than start a pissing contest. I have, alas, had trouble with that sort before.

[7veilsphaedra.livejournal.com]

No, it certainly isn't your responsibility to educate anyone. It probably happens a lot though, in a completely inadvertant fashion, one of those nice side effects of dialoguing. I confess, sometimes because I'm '9-years-old', or overdosing on sugar, or possessed by the Monkey King, if I see a huge, gi-normous "Poke Me" button, I simply have to poke it because the fireworks and battle-mustering and explosions are just so f**king hilarious. It usually takes a hefty overdose of something or other --- self-importance? pomposity? jingoism? heavyhanded authoritarianism? *shrug* --- to summon forth that hobgoblin. But, no, I haven't been tempted here and not out of the fear of being banned (because usually when civility disintegrates to that extent, I don't want to continue the relationship anyway) but because our dialogues have value and interest to me, because they are civil and respectful, and I am truly pleased to have made your online acquaintance.

[reichsfreiherr.livejournal.com]

Conversational learning is definitely a benefit and there’s always more to learn on any topic. Nobody ever has all the information and there’s always going to be somebody who can teach you something new. It’s the perception of inviting irritation that I tend to be most concerned about because I’d hope I don’t appear in need of verbal humiliation which is what poking for the sake of poking has always appeared to be from my perception. I’ve always been of the opinion that if somebody feels the urge to argue with me for the sake of scoring points and attempting to invalidate my point of view, I’m probably better off staying well away from them because that really is only a step beyond trying to forcibly change people, not for their own benefit through development and self-realisation but rather, because the person inflicting that on them wants a static ideal rather than the actual person they’re talking to. Which probably ties in quite nicely with the business of fandom arguments over character attributes where everybody gets so very heated over how certain characters are meant to behave. Because everybody wants their own fantasy and to have that held up as the established ‘truth’, which is no different from the establishment of hegemonic dialogue anyway where changes are adopted in a way that attempts to pretend that things have always been that way.

[7veilsphaedra.livejournal.com]

I completely agree about those sort of arguments which are more about static --- or stasis --- and not at all about moving forward, understanding each other, or self-realization. It is disappointing and banal when a conversation deteriorates like that.

I suppose it comes down to a point where having endured ridicule, name-calling, and the usual bad mannered responses, where discussion between people who disagreed (but did so in a civil manner) was usurped by individuals or specific groups who resorted to havoc for the purpose of derailing the discussion and even destroying a site ---yes, eventually, even the worm turns. Then it is a matter of strategically pulling apart the obstructions and interference limb from limb... poke, there goes that premise ... poke, that fallacy... poke, that unsupported hypothesis ... poke, poke, poke, watch the strawmen crumble. I can deflect and ignore a lot, but won't do it if something more important than my own personal ego has been attacked in a malicious way.

Obviously this hasn't got much to do with your situation or your journal, so I wonder that I even mentioned it at all, except for the purpose of being candid. To say that I never get into verbal battles ever is patently untrue AND I would be ashamed, under very specific circumstances, if it were true.

[7veilsphaedra.livejournal.com]

I should also mention that, if it is a matter of a site being targetted by political or religious factions for the purpose of shutting down discourse, my responses tend to be gauged according to what words are most lethal as opposed to most gracious.

[herit.livejournal.com]

Amen to this. I'm really sort of tired of people who consider a discussion an actual arguement or fight as soon as opinions do not match, or who think that the term discussion implies fighting and winning by making the other shut up or changing his mind in the best case. It's really annoying. I love a good debate, especially with people like you, who can differ between sharing opinions and having sympathy for somebody or getting along, and who can discuss without having to win, or without just giving in when their opinion is not shared. Really, that's worth a lot. Most importantly, you forgive me occasional derailing, or trouble with language, vocabulary, and spelling.

But back to the post itself: I cannot really say much more than thank you for that, your articles are always an extreme pleasure to read, entertaining and right to the core. So, I fear I cannot tell you that you are completely and utterly wrong here, but should the time come, be sure I'll let you know (or maybe, rather, you'll let me know again).

[madame-parker.livejournal.com]

I agree with you about people who treat debating as a fight and not a discussion, I think that's why I don't like debating, one of my worst cases, when I was in school a debate turned into a full out fight, after that I just threw my hands in the air and told myself to keep my mouth shut, I haven't been in a debate since than. I happen to believe that most people these days don't know how to share thoughts, ideas and opinions, God forbid they should agree to disagree, you know. And when I wrote my first comment to this post I was suffering from the worst headache known to man kind but I still stand by what I wrote, and I'm sorry to say that I still don't say anything when a debate comes up, I feel much safer when my thoughts stay where they are, which is in my head.

[herit.livejournal.com]

I honestly hadn't read the other comments so far, since I tend to comment on LJ usually when I'm quite tired and unable to concentrate for too long. But I feel you there, some people just won't get that the whole thing is not just about being the one who was right in the end. That's something you can practise in kindergarten or in politics. It's fun sometimes, but with people I respect it's entirely uninteresting, though I have to admit to having defended opinions when I had been proven wrong, just to make the other shut up and come out as the winner. It's sort of a Pyrrhic victory, though. And you're certainly right, although it's a pity: Most people have no idea how to debate properly and why to debate to begin with. Hardly anybody who really enjoys the process, and enjoying not in the sense of "enjoying a fight and a chance to prove yourself superior", but in the sense of being able to exchange opinions, to see something from a point of view you may never have considered before, to see alternative trails of thinking and explain (not push) your own, and, of course, to be able to work on your rhetoric skills (and language skills, in some cases).

But hey, you can always share your thoughts with me, really. I may come across a bit harsh sometimes in discussions, but it's rather euphoria than aggression, really. And if you ever need back-up in a real fight... tell me. ;) I enjoy this kind of arguing too, sometimes.

On a slightly unrelated note... do you have migraine?

[madame-parker.livejournal.com]

You've pretty much just said everything I feel on the subject and you've never come across as harsh, I rather enjoy it when you lose youself in a subject that you are very passionate about and always love to read any thoughts you have, either from History or TB canon.
In fact your one of the very few people I'm comfortable with sharing my thoughts, it's also nice that it's not just TB that has us chatting but many subjects.

I don't have mirgraine, I suffer from headaches sometimes, mostly when I'm over tired or stressed, which is offten, lol.

[reichsfreiherr.livejournal.com]

Thank you. When did this shift in meaning occur anyway? Because I sure as hell don’t remember being told at any stage in the game that the purpose of discussion was to get into pissing matches with the next chap. It’s not a matter of scoring points and never was as you and I both know. What points anyway? Who’s keeping score? Why does any of it matter? Though considering it now maybe it’s some fucked up elaborate defence mechanism so that instead of admitting that they’ve never considered something from a certain angle before, the morons of the world decide that everybody must hold the same opinion to be ‘right’ and thus try to argue everyone else down. But I refuse to get into a battle of wits with the unarmed these days at least.
You don’t derail; they’re just valid tangents, at least that’s my excuse. As for the language issue your English is magnificent, quite honestly and I’m not one given to hyperbole so take that as a genuine comment.

And thank you again. If I need to be told “Stop, you’re being a fool” it’s good to know that someone whose opinion I value will be the one to do it.

[clonechild.livejournal.com]

Ehm... I have to admit I am mostly guilty of starting discussions just for the sake of discussion, and not really having something to say. Of course this puts me more often than not at the short end of the stick, also because attacking from other angles is something I do often as well, even if I agree with what is being said.
...
And now I don't even know whether this post had some point.
...
Maybe this is an appropriate place to start quoting. (Yay for the Philosophy classroom, with all its quotes plastered on the wall! And it probably isn't the exact quote, but translating is not my strongest suit.)
"A wise man talks because he has something to say. A fool talks to have something to say."

I guess that makes me the fool, then.

[reichsfreiherr.livejournal.com]

If you are just attempting to view all the angles of the argument then it’s perfectly fine and is something that people ought to do more often to avoid the sort of idiocy where everything gets into a pissing match over absolute ‘truth’.

Plato did have a very good point there really. Sometimes silence is the best response if there’s honestly nothing to contribute rather than gibbering on indefinitely just to fill up the silence. It’s learning to understand when you have nothing to add and no need to add it that’s the trick. Too many people seem to worry about appearing foolish if they don’t immediately say something where as the fact of saying something just for the sake of saying it often provides the opposite effect. Of course sometimes you do need to state the obvious just to prove that you know it in an educational environment though the point there is to prove what you know. Outside of that you shouldn’t feel that you have to prove yourself to anyone.

[reichsfreiherr.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. But goodness that can’t be fun having to deal with that sort of nonsense on a reasonably regular basis. Self-righteous batshittery is only really entertaining if it’s fictional and even then it gets tedious after a while.

It’s really that maxim of ‘say it like you mean it’ all twisted up into nonsense, isn’t it? And sadly the work place and the educational system seems to reinforce the need to be loud over having any damn content. I remember an acquaintance once telling me that she’d known the answers that I’d given in a seminar but hadn’t thought to say them out loud because it seemed like stating the obvious. Which it was but alas that was deemed necessary to prove that you knew it. There’s such a blurred boarder between knowing something and saying so and not knowing anything but shouting the loudest that it’s painful to witness really. And as far as the educational value of it goes, I’m not at all convinced that enough people realise that it’s an example of a worst case scenario half the time.

[levy.livejournal.com]

OMG, this discussion of yours has the power to make everyone that ever answered to your posts as guilty as Winnie the Pooh with his hands inside the honey jar in front of the dietologist.
So.. NO! I refuse to admit I'd ever answer you with bullshit and such! è_é
and if it ever sound so, I swear it was not intentional.

Totally agree on the friend policy: LJ is for ramblings, if you make friends through it, might be cool, but not necessary.

[levy.livejournal.com]

and, more pertinently, there is a popular motto from my country that says "there's no worse idiot than who refuse to understand".
And that's true: if one starts a discussion with the idea of not seeing the other POV no matter what, he does it just for the purpose of fight. That is kind of sad, expecially when it comes to light arguments like fandom and such... "it's-serious-business!!"-fans could be dangerous XD

[reichsfreiherr.livejournal.com]

Genuine questions and debate I never mind. It’s just that I’ve over the years found myself something of a moving target for verbal garbage projectiles as I’ve said above, generally from the younger demographic in fandom. I hate to generalise by being ageist but there really tend to be some indicators dependent on age.

I probably do tend towards the ‘serious business’ side of discussion but as long as that’s always just a result of trying to make myself understood so that the other party grasps the point even if they then choose to disagree, I’m probably safe from sinking into to pettiness. It’s once discussion moves beyond the point of actual discussion and into arguing petty details around it so to avoid the actual debate and instead just score points that I start to get slightly snappish.

there is a popular motto from my country that says "there's no worse idiot than who refuse to understand".

What would this be in Italian? I’m always glad to learn useful idioms in any language.

[levy.livejournal.com]

I didn't explain myself correctly, what I mean with "serious business fan" is those fan that tend to defend/attack characters as they are an active entity, like a real person they know, or even themselves... and yes, you are right, the majority of them are early teenagers, and I guess that one strong reason for this attitude is the fact that the little brats are very often too shy to speak out their minds in pubblic in RL, and they use internet and fandoms to let go, overreacting each time they found someone to pick arguments with ^^;

how old are you? I guess it's over 25...

that line sounds like "Non c'è peggior cretino di chi non vuol capire!"
and feel free to quote it, even it's not that shiny latin motto at all XD

[reichsfreiherr.livejournal.com]

I see what you mean now. I’ve seen several cases of it around in various fandoms to the point where people will argue that even canonically established flaws for their favourite characters simply aren’t possible. I do like many flawed characters myself but to use Trinity Blood as an example, I like Isaak because he’s arguably all talk and no trousers and Süleyman because he’s what happens to a good man when said man turns into a complete and utter nutball. They’re both adorable with their neuroses intact, if they were perfect then there’s probably be no reason whatsoever for either of them to be involved in the plot.



And thank you for that. Now I just need to start watching EuroNews in Italian so that I can figure out how to pronounce it.

[levy.livejournal.com]

LOL! it's quite a vulgar statement if not badmouthed at all, so I guess you won't hear it in Euronews, even if the majority of our politicians are sadly deprived of the basic politness -.-
Listen to some music instead ^_-!

I didn't know you liked Isaak, instead I guessed it's your fault if I've started to pay attention to Suleyman at the level to involve him in my random drabbling ^^;
My favourite characters are normally the ones that has the hugest amount of personality quirks and a pathetic unhability to overcome them. Normally, the less they resemble my real self, the more sympathetic I feel towards them, even if Trinity Blood is quite and exception to this. I won't repeat myself about Seth, we've talked about her even in too much detail XD, but she came second-best to William, that also has his nice balance between light and shadow, and is, I guess, quite a lot like me.

that reminds me... I dig this idea of getting old early with a lot of tea involved! let's found a phylosophy around it and call ourselves the "Couchteafarians!"

[reichsfreiherr.livejournal.com]

I probably like most of the characters to a certain degree though there are of course some that don’t really interest me at the current time. Isaak is one of my favourites, possibly for being the prettiest girl left in the Orden at the end of the day. Süleyman certainly needs more attention, I tend to get the impression that the fandom as a whole either ignores him or just uses him as a plot device to drive whatever Radu-centric plot is going on.
I’m really not sure that I have a favourite type beyond having a soft spot for political or generically scheming characters. There’s a series titled Meine Liebe that I started on by deconstructing the ostentatiously main character quite violently, for example, and once I’d finally got a grasp of him he turned out to be one of my favourites. He’s another well-presented, egalitarian, dramatic and potentially crazy politician character actually which may suggest that I like dramatic political characters precisely because it’s unrealistic for politics to really be that dramatic in real life. Politics isn’t about flinging your arms wide at the end of your speech and having everybody in the room calling for you to head the next committee meeting or at least not post-WWII it isn’t. That theatrical leadership style went out of fashion with the war even if there is something wonderfully dramatic and self-indulgent about it. But coming back to Trinity Blood I don’t think I can say that I have an absolute favourite character at all really. I desperately want to like Seth but something hasn’t quite clicked just yet, I equally want to like novel version Ion but I’ve not got there yet, Caterina and Tres are growing on me and I’m likely to be pretty much out of sorts with Dietrich until the end of the novels when he actually does something. And now with all this rambling you’ve reminded me that I really ought to get round to finishing one university era William & Isaak piece I’ve had on the go for a while. There’ll probably be no need to write William unleashing his devastating fencing skills on anyone during that piece though.

[levy.livejournal.com]

PolSci- whut?