~| Is Debate Useless? |~
It has been proven that debate is useless because if anything it consolidates and reinforces a person's original prejudices. Exposing and humiliating an ideology does not make the person who believes in it any more likely to abandon it. In fact it does quite the opposite.
Is debate useless? Hitler was feted for his refusal to engage in intelligent debate because he was incapable of giving any rationality to his views. He was admired rather than reviled for this. As human beings are emotional rather than rational, is debate impossible, even useless? Is refusing to debate your ideas a sign of strength and conviction?
Although I do acknowledge that nowadays is someone refused to publicly debate their personal views that would be seen as an example of those views being irrationally held.
Is debate useless? Hitler was feted for his refusal to engage in intelligent debate because he was incapable of giving any rationality to his views. He was admired rather than reviled for this. As human beings are emotional rather than rational, is debate impossible, even useless? Is refusing to debate your ideas a sign of strength and conviction?
Although I do acknowledge that nowadays is someone refused to publicly debate their personal views that would be seen as an example of those views being irrationally held.
Original post by The Dictator
It has been proven that debate is useless because if anything it consolidates and reinforces a person's original prejudices. Exposing and humiliating an ideology does not make the person who believes in it any more likely to abandon it. In fact it does quite the opposite.
Is debate useless? Hitler was feted for his refusal to engage in intelligent debate because he was incapable of giving any rationality to his views. He was admired rather than reviled for this. As human beings are emotional rather than rational, is debate impossible, even useless? Is refusing to debate your ideas a sign of strength and conviction?
Although I do acknowledge that nowadays is someone refused to publicly debate their personal views that would be seen as an example of those views being irrationally held.
Is debate useless? Hitler was feted for his refusal to engage in intelligent debate because he was incapable of giving any rationality to his views. He was admired rather than reviled for this. As human beings are emotional rather than rational, is debate impossible, even useless? Is refusing to debate your ideas a sign of strength and conviction?
Although I do acknowledge that nowadays is someone refused to publicly debate their personal views that would be seen as an example of those views being irrationally held.
I have to admit, I often think debate is useless and a lot of the time I avoid it, and instead opt to find ways of just doing something myself anyway as it's the easiest thing to do.
That said, if I know I am definitely right I'm happy to debate to win people over.
If I do end up in a debate however and I am wrong, I am more than willing to admit that and change my view. So I don't agree with your opening line "It has been proven that debate is useless because if anything it consolidates and reinforces a person's original prejudices" - because rational people will change their view if they are not right.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by The Dictator
It has been proven that debate is useless because if anything it consolidates and reinforces a person's original prejudices. Exposing and humiliating an ideology does not make the person who believes in it any more likely to abandon it. In fact it does quite the opposite.
Is debate useless? Hitler was feted for his refusal to engage in intelligent debate because he was incapable of giving any rationality to his views. He was admired rather than reviled for this. As human beings are emotional rather than rational, is debate impossible, even useless? Is refusing to debate your ideas a sign of strength and conviction?
Although I do acknowledge that nowadays is someone refused to publicly debate their personal views that would be seen as an example of those views being irrationally held.
Is debate useless? Hitler was feted for his refusal to engage in intelligent debate because he was incapable of giving any rationality to his views. He was admired rather than reviled for this. As human beings are emotional rather than rational, is debate impossible, even useless? Is refusing to debate your ideas a sign of strength and conviction?
Although I do acknowledge that nowadays is someone refused to publicly debate their personal views that would be seen as an example of those views being irrationally held.
Debate is useful in the context of large groups where there is likely to be a subset of people who are open minded and willing to come to an informed conclusion free of bias.
But yes, as we saw with Clegg-Farage and Salmond-Darling, the overall impact of those debates was that while their was an acknowledged winner the polling impact was minimal. People had already formed an opinion and for the most part, this remained solidified in both cases.
Debates aren't necessarily useless: they will generally change some people's minds, albeit a minority of people. However, as alluded to already, they may cause others to simply strengthen their views in the face of contradictory evidence: this is known as the backfire effect in psychology.
Some debates are more useful than others, though. Personally, I find factual, scientific debates to be better than political debates. The former group may include debates on specific topics which may also be political in nature, but politics itself is a mind-killer, and any debates regarding politics usually amount to two sides cherry-picking evidence to suit their own agenda: it's a massive whirlpool of confirmation bias. This can happen in any debate, but in politics, there are so many people with political views that people can find statistics from thinktanks or other sources to suit their own views, because there's bound to be someone with your political view who has authored a study supporting your political view.
Also, politics often is decided by one's morality: what one person thinks is fair, another may not. If this is the case, people are never going to agree on things because they're approaching issues from two different moral perspectives, and morality is essentially subjective.
Debates in the former, better category include any scientific debate (evolution, global warming, GM Crops, mobile phones and cancer, badger culling, animal experimentation, homeopathy, astrology, etc), and religious debate (Jesus' existence, the existence of God, etc). Obviously, some of these overlap with political debates, but proper science is far more trustworthy than, say, economics. In other words, political debate more to do with an economic issue will involve two sides cherry-picking studies from their favourite economists. Another problem with political debates is that, even if someone's political party has a bad policy, a supporter of the party will still defend it because they want the party to win the election: if they start saying 'this policy is wrong, but overall, the policies are good', it'll simply make their argument look weak and make people less inclined to vote for the party.
Some debates are more useful than others, though. Personally, I find factual, scientific debates to be better than political debates. The former group may include debates on specific topics which may also be political in nature, but politics itself is a mind-killer, and any debates regarding politics usually amount to two sides cherry-picking evidence to suit their own agenda: it's a massive whirlpool of confirmation bias. This can happen in any debate, but in politics, there are so many people with political views that people can find statistics from thinktanks or other sources to suit their own views, because there's bound to be someone with your political view who has authored a study supporting your political view.
Also, politics often is decided by one's morality: what one person thinks is fair, another may not. If this is the case, people are never going to agree on things because they're approaching issues from two different moral perspectives, and morality is essentially subjective.
Debates in the former, better category include any scientific debate (evolution, global warming, GM Crops, mobile phones and cancer, badger culling, animal experimentation, homeopathy, astrology, etc), and religious debate (Jesus' existence, the existence of God, etc). Obviously, some of these overlap with political debates, but proper science is far more trustworthy than, say, economics. In other words, political debate more to do with an economic issue will involve two sides cherry-picking studies from their favourite economists. Another problem with political debates is that, even if someone's political party has a bad policy, a supporter of the party will still defend it because they want the party to win the election: if they start saying 'this policy is wrong, but overall, the policies are good', it'll simply make their argument look weak and make people less inclined to vote for the party.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by The Dictator
It has been proven that debate is useless because if anything it consolidates and reinforces a person's original prejudices. Exposing and humiliating an ideology does not make the person who believes in it any more likely to abandon it. In fact it does quite the opposite.
Is debate useless? Hitler was feted for his refusal to engage in intelligent debate because he was incapable of giving any rationality to his views. He was admired rather than reviled for this. As human beings are emotional rather than rational, is debate impossible, even useless? Is refusing to debate your ideas a sign of strength and conviction?
Although I do acknowledge that nowadays is someone refused to publicly debate their personal views that would be seen as an example of those views being irrationally held.
Is debate useless? Hitler was feted for his refusal to engage in intelligent debate because he was incapable of giving any rationality to his views. He was admired rather than reviled for this. As human beings are emotional rather than rational, is debate impossible, even useless? Is refusing to debate your ideas a sign of strength and conviction?
Although I do acknowledge that nowadays is someone refused to publicly debate their personal views that would be seen as an example of those views being irrationally held.
Not sure if I agree. I can't talk for other people but when I've approached a debate with an open mind, I've had my opinion changed quite a few times.
Original post by Chlorophile
Not sure if I agree. I can't talk for other people but when I've approached a debate with an open mind, I've had my opinion changed quite a few times.
Few people do.
Original post by The Dictator
Few people do.
That's probably also true. I can count the number of people who've said I'm right after a debate on one hand (although that might be more because of my rubbish debating than the inherent stubbornness of humanity)
It depends and the debaters and the goal of the debate itself. Personally I sometimes I tend to avoid debates that I know will be useless because the other part is simply going to defend his point of view rather than providing an intellectual discussion on which both of our ideas can develop and evolve.
What WiFi said. Debate itself is not useless as it is a method. Methods are useful in different degrees in different scenarios. If you are talking to your common lay person, or the "practical man" then they are very unlikely to ever change there mind due to their closed-minded nature. They enjoy living in their own facade of rubbish too much to care about contemplating otherwise. If however you have a group of philosophers the outcome is likely quite different. Of course, philosophical debates can be unfathomably complex and a lot of the disputes arise because the meta-physical and epistemological foundations of both participants vary and so those are the topics that need to be addressed not whichever more prominent and recent belief is actually being debated.
Debates can often be useless because people aren't open enough to try to comprehend that they aren't always correct. In the events that a debate occurs with people whom are open-minded; sometimes opinions change and that can be beneficial henceforth debates are not always useless but can be pointless.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Chlorophile
Not sure if I agree. I can't talk for other people but when I've approached a debate with an open mind, I've had my opinion changed quite a few times.
This. I have changed many minds, and others have warped mine. There is an issue with debates if you're arguing, for example, politics: if the two in debate have two completely different goals in mind, the debate becomes pointless. e.g. one fighting for the planet, the other for humanity.
To put it clearer: professional debates, where topics are set by a moderating body have the influence to spin the topic. The same is done with surveys and votes. Informal debates where you can continually reshape a question and perspective to get the opponent to think, is far better.
Also, emotional arguments are stupid. Don't use them.
Most people go into a debate with a pre-conceived idea of what is right and will argue in favour for their position. I don't think a single debate is enough to sway most people's minds, especially if it involves something which is fundamental to their identity (religion, politics, morality etc...). I do however believe that, although a single debate cannot have an affect on a person, debates over the long run can change ones views.
If for example a certain belief of yours is often attacked and you struggle to defend it, over the long run you may begin to alter your belief so as to circumvent these attacks and make it more credible and defensible. This is ultimately the success of debate. Those who harbour extreme and intolerant views which are hard to defend will, if faced with debates in which they struggle to defend their position, will over time assume a position that is less extreme or intolerant.
Or at least that is what I believe.
If for example a certain belief of yours is often attacked and you struggle to defend it, over the long run you may begin to alter your belief so as to circumvent these attacks and make it more credible and defensible. This is ultimately the success of debate. Those who harbour extreme and intolerant views which are hard to defend will, if faced with debates in which they struggle to defend their position, will over time assume a position that is less extreme or intolerant.
Or at least that is what I believe.
Original post by The Epicurean
If for example a certain belief of yours is often attacked and you struggle to defend it, over the long run you may begin to alter your belief so as to circumvent these attacks and make it more credible and defensible. This is ultimately the success of debate. Those who harbour extreme and intolerant views which are hard to defend will, if faced with debates in which they struggle to defend their position, will over time assume a position that is less extreme or intolerant.
Or at least that is what I believe.
If for example a certain belief of yours is often attacked and you struggle to defend it, over the long run you may begin to alter your belief so as to circumvent these attacks and make it more credible and defensible. This is ultimately the success of debate. Those who harbour extreme and intolerant views which are hard to defend will, if faced with debates in which they struggle to defend their position, will over time assume a position that is less extreme or intolerant.
Or at least that is what I believe.
Interesting take. I've always seen debates as something for the audience, not the opponent. The aim of debate isn't to come to a consensus, usually. It's usually polar opposites. Go to war->don't go to war; zero-tolerance->rehab; pro-drugs->anti. Those kinds of questions will never have either debater jump the line.
I think most people would tell me my views have become more and more 'intolerant' over time, but that's just because no one has been able to wrap their head around why I oppose women's suffrage. Even when they get it on a logical level, but still emotionally reject the reasoning.
Original post by HigherMinion
Interesting take. I've always seen debates as something for the audience, not the opponent. The aim of debate isn't to come to a consensus, usually. It's usually polar opposites. Go to war->don't go to war; zero-tolerance->rehab; pro-drugs->anti. Those kinds of questions will never have either debater jump the line.
I think most people would tell me my views have become more and more 'intolerant' over time, but that's just because no one has been able to wrap their head around why I oppose women's suffrage. Even when they get it on a logical level, but still emotionally reject the reasoning.
I think most people would tell me my views have become more and more 'intolerant' over time, but that's just because no one has been able to wrap their head around why I oppose women's suffrage. Even when they get it on a logical level, but still emotionally reject the reasoning.
I suppose it is also based upon whether the individual feels that their view is indefensible. If one feels their view is defensible and disagrees with every argument made against theirs and feels that the arguments presented are poor, then obviously they wouldn't be willing to alter it.
I find it hard to believe that TSR debating is necessarily always for an audience. Many debates happen all through TSR that go on for pages and pages over trivial things which most people tend to gloss over. And many people do carry debates over on to PM. So from a TSR perspective, debates do often exist outside the traditional framework where an audience is present.
Interestingly, but slightly off topic, I remember reading about how during the women suffrage movements, most socialist groups and left leaning groups were actually opposed to women's suffrage. I guess most people would assume that they would be the first groups to put up a fight for women's suffrage. But in fact they were fearful of women gaining suffrage because women tended to be more religious, attend Church more often and would listen to and be swayed by the priests and vicars espousing more conservative views and thus were more likely to vote conservative. So for tactical reasons many on the left opposed women's suffrage.
I must admit that I am intrigued as to what your reasons are though
Original post by The Epicurean
Interestingly, but slightly off topic, I remember reading about how during the women suffrage movements, most socialist groups and left leaning groups were actually opposed to women's suffrage. I guess most people would assume that they would be the first groups to put up a fight for women's suffrage. But in fact they were fearful of women gaining suffrage because women tended to be more religious, attend Church more often and would listen to and be swayed by the priests and vicars espousing more conservative views and thus were more likely to vote conservative. So for tactical reasons many on the left opposed women's suffrage.
I must admit that I am intrigued as to what your reasons are though
Interestingly, but slightly off topic, I remember reading about how during the women suffrage movements, most socialist groups and left leaning groups were actually opposed to women's suffrage. I guess most people would assume that they would be the first groups to put up a fight for women's suffrage. But in fact they were fearful of women gaining suffrage because women tended to be more religious, attend Church more often and would listen to and be swayed by the priests and vicars espousing more conservative views and thus were more likely to vote conservative. So for tactical reasons many on the left opposed women's suffrage.
I must admit that I am intrigued as to what your reasons are though
That's an interesting notion, that the socialist groups opposed women's suffrage. That's certainly not the case now, but that's probably because they injected feminism in to the movement to bring them to their anti-establishment side. Perhaps?
Criminals don't have the vote; <16 year olds don't have the vote; women shouldn't* have the vote either. There are two main reasons:
1. As many people say in a democracy, people are stupid. Trying to encourage universal suffrage in order to create a "fair society" is a barmy idea. What would happen if criminals and idiot 16 year olds could vote? It's not to say all criminals are selfish or that all 16 year olds and younger are ignorant, but the majority are. You don't want to set a precedent for universal suffrage, ever.
2. It degrades the family unit. Women have always had agency, nothing changes with the vote in terms of human rights, but women in times past were always beside a man; be it father or husband. Encouraging family bonds is one of the most important efforts to maintain liberty and personal freedom in a civilisation.
Original post by HigherMinion
That's an interesting notion, that the socialist groups opposed women's suffrage. That's certainly not the case now, but that's probably because they injected feminism in to the movement to bring them to their anti-establishment side. Perhaps?
Criminals don't have the vote; <16 year olds don't have the vote; women shouldn't* have the vote either. There are two main reasons:
1. As many people say in a democracy, people are stupid. Trying to encourage universal suffrage in order to create a "fair society" is a barmy idea. What would happen if criminals and idiot 16 year olds could vote? It's not to say all criminals are selfish or that all 16 year olds and younger are ignorant, but the majority are. You don't want to set a precedent for universal suffrage, ever.
2. It degrades the family unit. Women have always had agency, nothing changes with the vote in terms of human rights, but women in times past were always beside a man; be it father or husband. Encouraging family bonds is one of the most important efforts to maintain liberty and personal freedom in a civilisation.
Criminals don't have the vote; <16 year olds don't have the vote; women shouldn't* have the vote either. There are two main reasons:
1. As many people say in a democracy, people are stupid. Trying to encourage universal suffrage in order to create a "fair society" is a barmy idea. What would happen if criminals and idiot 16 year olds could vote? It's not to say all criminals are selfish or that all 16 year olds and younger are ignorant, but the majority are. You don't want to set a precedent for universal suffrage, ever.
2. It degrades the family unit. Women have always had agency, nothing changes with the vote in terms of human rights, but women in times past were always beside a man; be it father or husband. Encouraging family bonds is one of the most important efforts to maintain liberty and personal freedom in a civilisation.
I'm not quite sure when socialist groups and the left in general aligned with feminists. I guess after women gained suffrage, they became an important demographic to appease? Any powerful demographic which rallies behind a cause can exert a change in direction of political groups vying for power.
I see, interesting
I see you harbour a majority of views which are the polar opposite from my own 
It is interesting to note that your conception of democracy could be argued to be far more in line with the original Athenian conception of democracy. The roots of democracy in Athens did not grant suffrage to women, among a number of other groups within society.
One aspect of Athenian democracy that I think we do lack though is what was known as Ostracism, which allowed all citizens of the democracy to essentially democratically vote to remove someone from power. Would be interesting to see how different our current system would be if such a system existed.
Apologies to OP as I have detracted the topic of his thread and driven conversation off on a tangent >_<
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by The Dictator
It has been proven that debate is useless because if anything it consolidates and reinforces a person's original prejudices. Exposing and humiliating an ideology does not make the person who believes in it any more likely to abandon it. In fact it does quite the opposite.
Is debate useless? Hitler was feted for his refusal to engage in intelligent debate because he was incapable of giving any rationality to his views. He was admired rather than reviled for this. As human beings are emotional rather than rational, is debate impossible, even useless? Is refusing to debate your ideas a sign of strength and conviction?
Although I do acknowledge that nowadays is someone refused to publicly debate their personal views that would be seen as an example of those views being irrationally held.
Is debate useless? Hitler was feted for his refusal to engage in intelligent debate because he was incapable of giving any rationality to his views. He was admired rather than reviled for this. As human beings are emotional rather than rational, is debate impossible, even useless? Is refusing to debate your ideas a sign of strength and conviction?
Although I do acknowledge that nowadays is someone refused to publicly debate their personal views that would be seen as an example of those views being irrationally held.
I'm going to interpret "useful" in a different way. I find debate intellectually stimulating and find it often causes me to think deeper into topics. Yes, my core belief rarely changes unless I'm debating something that was not very important to me in the first place and the same is true for the person with whom I'm debating, but my intention isn't always to persuade them or to validate my own ideas.
Original post by Erebusaur
I'm going to interpret "useful" in a different way. I find debate intellectually stimulating and find it often causes me to think deeper into topics. Yes, my core belief rarely changes unless I'm debating something that was not very important to me in the first place and the same is true for the person with whom I'm debating, but my intention isn't always to persuade them or to validate my own ideas.
That's a good point +1 (but I can't +rep anymore people today
)Quick Reply
Related discussions
- a level history coursework
- Cambridge Law Application Journey
- Help with advanced higher history
- N/A
- Is Durham as prestigious as the London ones!”
- Geography or law degree?
- Politics degree
- My name is nikhil nayankumar patel
- Scared to do Philosophy BA
- Do you declare this for uni?
- should i change my degree
- Not enjoying my job
- IDK I'm lost.
- Would you rather study or start working as soon as possible?
- what's the most useless job?
- struggling with a level options
- Not sure if I should do Philosophyðics A-Level
- degree apprenticeship
- Need advice
- Will working in a charity shop look good for applying for a Psychology degree?
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Social work degree apprenticeshipLast reply 1 minute ago
What university are best for 3D animation and visual effect?Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 3 minutes ago
a level geography difference between storm beaches and beach berms?Last reply 9 minutes ago
NICS Staff Officer and Deputy Principal recruitment 2022 2023Last reply 9 minutes ago
Official University of Cambridge offer-holders thread for 2024 entryLast reply 10 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryTrending
Last reply 5 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 6 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 6 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
