Debates and curiosity/intellect

[delfts]

Referring to "Serious Business" discussions and debates in general: why debate? Obviously, debates are beneficial, but I don't see how/why I'd ever want to debate. On prevalent issues, I often find myself siding with the "obviously correct" side, so I see no reason to debate. And what's the difference between those who debate and those who don't?

I was going to to leave the thread at that, but then I actually thought of a topic of interest. What separates those who enjoy learning new things, debating, being critical thinkers, etc. (I'd imagine many xkcd denizens fit into this category) from those who don't (laymen, gangsters, etc., to do a bit of generalization)? What motivates those who take up more intellectual pursuits? Perhaps this will lead to a better answer for my first question.

[RadicalModerate]

In my experience the "obviously correct" answer is just as likely to be the incorrect one, and when it IS correct it is for entirely different reasons than the ones which make it seem to be "obviously correct." We debate because we recognize the fallibility of our own mind, and because we want to become more knowledgeable, more correct. We expose our views to others in order to help us find fallacies and inconsistencies in our viewpoints so that we can change them. We also debate to help others find truth as we find it ourselves.

Honestly I think that to be someone who often debates one would have to either value truth a lot and not have much confidence in his own views and/or want to help others reach the truth. A debater would also have to enjoy thinking, and probably be at least a little adept at speaking and logic. One other quality to be a (good?) debater one should have enough confidence/contentedness in oneself so as to not have a crisis of identity every time his argument is attacked/criticized. Whenever I am debating someone I can tell almost immediately if he is capable of debate because if he is not he will probably get angry, a sure sign that he is too attached to his viewpoint.

Hope that helped
PS: I LOVE to talk. That probably helps too.

[teacupthesauceror]

Because you're wrong, and I need to make you see that through the medium of words.

Seriously, though, I debate because I cannot see all sides of the issue myself. Sometimes something comes in from left field that completely changes my view on something, sometimes my views are strengthened when I break down the arguments of the opposition. Debate breeds thought. Yeah, most of the time people go away unchanged, but sometimes something magical happens and people change their minds.

If you truly think that your argument is completely logically sound, by all means go ahead and put it out there as fact, but I suspect that is not the case.

Also arguing is fun and invigorating.

[MrConor]

I was going to to leave the thread at that, but then I actually thought of a topic of interest. What separates those who enjoy learning new things, debating, being critical thinkers, etc. (I'd imagine many xkcd denizens fit into this category) from those who don't (laymen, gangsters, etc., to do a bit of generalization)? What motivates those who take up more intellectual pursuits? Perhaps this will lead to a better answer for my first question.

I honestly don't believe that there is a significant difference between the two categories. Where I think there is a difference is in the area of curiousity: many of the forum denizens are particularly interested in politics, science, art and other 'intellectual pursuits' and thus enjoy debating them. The principal interests of a lot of 'laymen' are in other areas. To take an obvious example, sports. The subject of football (soccer) has never interested me, but I know a lot of people who spend a fair amount of time learning new things about it (by watching games, and by reading sports journalism) and debating it (citation: any sports bar anywhere in the world).
Of course, some people debate because they enjoy the activity in itself.

As to a related question of why certain people become interested in certain things and other people become interested in others... that's beyond my capability to answer.

[jules.LT]

To dwell on the darker side of debate ("Does God exist?", "Israel Vs Palestine", etc.), people seek confrontation in order to get confirmation. They look for opposing views because they expect them to be wrong, and want to make sure that is so because deep down they're a bit insecure...
Which is a good thing because at the other end of the spectrum you get fanatics, who aren't much into debate.

[Mokele]

A few thoughts on my personal reasons for debating.

First, it helps me grasp my own position better - I've learned more about evolution from having to explain it to creationists than any class. Even if my opponent never budges, I've profited from the experience.

Second, it trains the mind to find flaws, oversights, omission, etc. Not just your typical logical fallacies, but also subtler aspects due to genuine forgetfulness or oversight of the other person or yourself. This is an invaluable skill in science, and one I use all the time, both when evaluating other's work and my own - every statement gets a "can this be supported? Am I / Are they missing something? Are there circumstances where this may not hold?" And taking your licks in online debates first makes it that much easier when you deal with the peer-review process.

Third, it's helped me explain things better. Poorly-worded sentences or ambiguous word choice will quickly weaken even the most correct argument. But it's more than just being clear, precise and articulate. Having to explain complex topics to those who aren't necessarily familiar with them has led me to become fairly apt at analogies.

Finally, it's just fun. Debating or discussing topic gives a chance to flex the brain and think through interesting problems. Not really sure why, but there's something about it I find tremendously entertaining, whether it's discussing politics here or spending hours at lab talking tendons.

[LaserGuy]

Referring to "Serious Business" discussions and debates in general: why debate? Obviously, debates are beneficial, but I don't see how/why I'd ever want to debate. On prevalent issues, I often find myself siding with the "obviously correct" side, so I see no reason to debate. And what's the difference between those who debate and those who don't?

Debating is a skill--well, actually it is a whole suite of related skills packaged together. To be able to debate, you must be knowledgable of the facts of a given subject, or be able to effectively research to support your arguments; you must be able to present your position clearly and create logical arguments to support your case; you must be able to recognize and dissect flaws in the reasoning of others. It is an intellectual pursuit: one may as well ask, why learn an instrument or learn Latin (or Klingon) or take apart a clock to see how it works? It is an exercise that stimulates that brain, particularly among those of us who are both nerdy and have way too much time on our hands. It also helps you recognize that many issues are complicated--there are very few issues where, in fact, one side is definitively right and one side is definitively wrong--and that learning about opposing points of view actually makes you better able to understand the whole.

If I may suggest, if you find yourself seeing no reason to debate because one side is "obviously correct", then challenge yourself. Join the discussion arguing vigorously and sincerely for the point of view you personally oppose, as an exercise for yourself. In high school, I used to do a bit of debating competitively, and teams would often be required either argue both sides of the debate in successive rounds, or you would enter the debate knowing the topic, but not necessarily what you were arguing for. You were expected to be able to defend a position objectively, on its own merits, not based on your personal views of the matter. I sometimes do this type of things here: on an issue where I'm ambivalent or would normally strongly favour one side, I'll enter the discussion favouring the other, and see if the reasons for my deciding that one side is "correct" stand up to my own scrutiny.

[KingofMadCows]

I was going to to leave the thread at that, but then I actually thought of a topic of interest. What separates those who enjoy learning new things, debating, being critical thinkers, etc. (I'd imagine many xkcd denizens fit into this category) from those who don't (laymen, gangsters, etc., to do a bit of generalization)? What motivates those who take up more intellectual pursuits? Perhaps this will lead to a better answer for my first question.

Environment. Children who grow up in middle or upper class families are spoken to three times as often as children who grow up in welfare class families and twice as often children who grow up in working class families. The dynamics of the interaction are different. In welfare class families, 80% of the interaction are negative, where the child is reprimanded or punished for doing something while it's the opposite for upper class families, where the child is rewarded or praised for their actions. Granted, sometimes there's a good reason why poor parents are harsher to their children since they often live in more dangerous neighborhoods where curiosity can be harmful.

[elasto]

Referring to "Serious Business" discussions and debates in general: why debate? Obviously, debates are beneficial, but I don't see how/why I'd ever want to debate. On prevalent issues, I often find myself siding with the "obviously correct" side, so I see no reason to debate.

Imho, outside of mathematics, perhaps, it's rare that any topic has an 'obviously correct' side to the extent that the opposing viewpoint has no merit at all.

The reason there are multiple enduring political viewpoints - socialism, conservatism, libertarianism etc. is that each has a nugget of 'truth' - something valuable that they bring to the table that the others don't. Tie yourself too closely to any one ideology - whether political or otherwise - and you can blind yourself to the value of alternate approaches to tackling a problem.

Debating not only gains you a better understanding of the rational foundation underpinning your own worldview, it can round it out by gaining you a deeper understanding of the worldview of others, which, as I say, is rarely without a rational foundation of its own.

[delfts]

I see now. I had kind of unconsciously known this beforehand. Are there any reasons for not debating? One obvious one (although its merit is questionable) is that it can cause problems in its attempt to resolve them. Like I said, I'm not sure that's even a good reason for not wanting to debate -- like you all said, it has many, many benefits, and they'd probably outweigh or negate that one disadvantage.

Now I wonder why I don't debate or flip debatable topics around in my mind. I should get into the habit of doing so...

delfts

[Metaphysician]

I see now. I had kind of unconsciously known this beforehand. Are there any reasons for not debating? One obvious one (although its merit is questionable) is that it can cause problems in its attempt to resolve them. Like I said, I'm not sure that's even a good reason for not wanting to debate -- like you all said, it has many, many benefits, and they'd probably outweigh or negate that one disadvantage.

Now I wonder why I don't debate or flip debatable topics around in my mind. I should get into the habit of doing so...

delfts

I wouldn't say it causes the problems. Debate is simply talking about problems that already exist. It can expose problems that were already there but hidden and I think that's a good thing.

Personally, I enjoy debating because I love hearing the philosophy of others, thinking about it, processing it. My beliefs are a result of my thought journey to date, but the journey never ends, I'm constantly changing, evolving, factoring in new philosophies and integrating new information.

An aside. I would like to point out that what passes for political debate these days is nothing of the kind. Real debate is point/counterpoint with rebuttals and direct confrontation. What the modern media terms as debate is really just a Q&A with a thirty seconds response limit. The answers are all something you can find by reading a candidate's web site.

[Angua]

I see now. I had kind of unconsciously known this beforehand. Are there any reasons for not debating? One obvious one (although its merit is questionable) is that it can cause problems in its attempt to resolve them. Like I said, I'm not sure that's even a good reason for not wanting to debate -- like you all said, it has many, many benefits, and they'd probably outweigh or negate that one disadvantage.

Now I wonder why I don't debate or flip debatable topics around in my mind. I should get into the habit of doing so...

delfts

The best reason for not debating is so you can actually leave the internet and go to bed early

Some people also prefer to avoid debates on things that they have strong opinions about as they know they'll get upset by it (this does not necessarily mean that they are not open to discussion, but that they only want to discuss it in certain circumstances).

[Zamfir]

I see now. I had kind of unconsciously known this beforehand. Are there any reasons for not debating? One obvious one (although its merit is questionable) is that it can cause problems in its attempt to resolve them. Like I said, I'm not sure that's even a good reason for not wanting to debate -- like you all said, it has many, many benefits, and they'd probably outweigh or negate that one disadvantage.

Now I wonder why I don't debate or flip debatable topics around in my mind. I should get into the habit of doing so...

having mock debates in your head can work to increase your insight, but it is no substitute for the real thing. The importance is exactly to be opposed to views you didn;t think of yourself much, and see them defended with an intensity you wont bring to them yourself. It's a defense against tunnel vision, so to speak.

That said, there are enough reasons not to debate, or to replace a somewhat adversial debate by a more cooperative conversation. Sometimes it is good to test views by attacking them and defending them, but often it is also good to discuss an issue without trying to convince anybody of your views.

Pretty everyone gets a stronger emotional attachment to a view when they are defending it in a debate, if only for the duration of the debate. That's not a bad thing, being attached to your views can be valuable. But it does lead to entrenchment. People dig in their positions with ever more arguments and evidence, and become unreasonably critical towards the faults in other arguments. Then you become easily less, not more likely to understand a different view.

So if you don't like debating, there is nog great harm in avoiding them. But in that case, think about other ways to stay critical of your views. If you find yourself holding the "obvious correct view" while other people completely disagree with it, try to understand why people hold that other view, what the merits of that other view are. You can do that through debate, but other venues might work just as well. Just ask people and listen. Read their books.

[AvatarIII]

if i ever debate it's normally for the purpose of learning, i'm often on the fence for many matters and such debate to draw out opinions of the 2 sides so i can make a better judgement,

if you can make fully formed opinions without listening to both sides of a debate, good for you, but i would never do that,

[juststrange]

To be able to debate, you must be knowledgable of the facts of a given subject, or be able to effectively research to support your arguments; you must be able to present your position clearly and create logical arguments to support your case; you must be able to recognize and dissect flaws in the reasoning of others.

While those are fine for competitive debate, you left out a few things needed for debate IRL. You must be able to listen with an open mind. You must be able to consider the arguments of others in earnest, attempt to be empathetic to why they might believe the way they do, and have a keen understanding of the events/decisions/values that make you feel the way you do. You must be able to recognize (and accept and admit) flaws in your own reasoning.

Some things may feel obviously right because they are so deeply engrained in some value or belief we have, and thats where the real kick comes in, the last two needs. (It should be noted that these apply more to the broader topic of arguement which is in fact different from debate) The first is that there are somethings you just feel, even if it doesn't make any logical sense - and while you are open to others viewpoints it doesn't mean you are considering them earnestly for yourself. Those situations should end with a gentlemanly agreement to disagree. The last is the ability to admit that sometimes you are wrong (or less right as the case may be).

[Zamfir]

if i ever debate it's normally for the purpose of learning, i'm often on the fence for many matters and such debate to draw out opinions of the 2 sides so i can make a better judgement,

if you can make fully formed opinions without listening to both sides of a debate, good for you, but i would never do that,

But there is a difference between listening to (or otherwise following) a debate, and participating in a debate. It is not that obvious to me how much is really added by participation, especially if you do not enjoy participation in itself.

It's perfectly possible to join a debate without any intention to learn or to take the other side's arguments really serious. And if you are willing to do those things, you might be just as well off by just reading or listening to the arguments, or by having a non-adversial conservation about the issue.

[AvatarIII]

if i ever debate it's normally for the purpose of learning, i'm often on the fence for many matters and such debate to draw out opinions of the 2 sides so i can make a better judgement,

if you can make fully formed opinions without listening to both sides of a debate, good for you, but i would never do that,

But there is a difference between listening to (or otherwise following) a debate, and participating in a debate. It is not that obvious to me how much is really added by participation, especially if you do not enjoy participation in itself.

It's perfectly possible to join a debate without any intention to learn or to take the other side's arguments really serious. And if you are willing to do those things, you might be just as well off by just reading or listening to the arguments, or by having a non-adversial conservation about the issue.

i think a debate can be more thorough than simply reading up on a subject though, also you tend to get a better balance between sides, because you have multiple viewpoints clashing rather than just the single writer of the book/article/whatever.

i would like to say now that i do not consider debates and arguments to be the same thing, a debate to me is a sharing of opinions with the purpose of informing the opposition, an argument is when 2 immovable opinions meet and clash.

often i will take part in a debate that i have little knowledge of to keep it moving and also ask questions because a debate is where you will often find the strongest opinions and therefore the best sources of knowledge on that subject.

[Sasquatch]

I think that debate is an important part of embracing our humanity as it leads to understanding.

When I engage in debate, I strengthen my understanding of what I believe and why I believe it. I also become empathetic to what others may believe and why they see things that way (even if I don't become swayed by their way of thinking).

Being able to understand where others are coming from is a vital skill in today's increasingly connect world.

[elasto]

Certainly you can learn a lot by simply reading a debate (I agree with others that tv is a poor medium for in depth, thoughtful debates). The best threads are where I read an argument and think to myself 'yep, that makes sense', and then someone poses a counter-argument and I think 'huh. yeah. you're right' and so on, back and forth.

But I think you can also learn a lot by trying to express your own views as part of a debate. Not merely the technical skills of formulating clear, precise, persuasive arguments, but often, in trying to express an idea, you realise you're not quite sure why you believe it so strongly to begin with. In attempting to express it in simple terms, you begin to realise how others are immediately going to counter it - and so, even if you never actually hit 'submit', you begin to appreciate that the subject is quite a bit more complicated than you thought it was.

(Naturally, this is only if you actually start formulating an in-depth argument - not if you merely intend to post some trite one-liners.)