![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
The nature of debate
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.
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.
no subject
no subject
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?
no subject
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.