I have noticed on this site and elsewhere than during debates, instead of debating ideas, people insult the person "dumb, fools, etc" and other kindness.
Honestly, this is not my idea of the debate. I accept that people disagree with me and that we debate our different points of view, while respecting each other. for me, that's how a debate should go, accepting differences, defending your ideas, and respecting.
Nowadays, can we still debate with respect for everyone?
Depends on a few criteria. First of all, you can have perfectly "respectful" debates however it is very easy to sabotage them at which point there is no reasonable "respectful" way to resolve it. Debating today have regressed somewhat from what it used to be in antiquity and the part that has endured the most is the knowledge on how to argue in bad faith meaning it has a certain dominance.
This is easily remedied if you for example have a good arbiter that can cut off any problems before they start but that requires them to be both knowledgeable and have the ability to control who can speak. Alternatively you can have a knowledgeable audience that can recognize any argument made in bad faith for what it is at which point it can be held against the person in question as well as reward people who argues in good faith.
This is very unlikely from people who are not explicitly educated in rhetoric as well as a decent knowledge regarding the subject. If you lack in any of these areas you will not recognize if someone for example uses complete nonsense to attack and defend ideas or hides behind "respect" to prop up their arguments.
For example, if someone lies then it is fairly easy for them to argue that it is unfair to call them a liar. Believe it or not but this happens very often in British politics as an example. It is not allowed to call someone a liar such as the Prime Minister so Boris Johnson can simply stand there and list of any number of lies and if someone calls him a liar then he can play the victim and have them apologize to him for correctly identifying him as a liar.
This ability to maliciously hide behind a "respectful" debate is the main reason why I dont even bother. I am perfectly capable of calling them out for their bullshit but what is the point when the "audience" can't see past the malicious debating and thinks that we are somehow equal because both are behaving "respectfully"?
I believe it is tied up with the definition of a debate. The goal of a debate is to win, which requires all others to lose. Frequently, I come across people who want to win all the time. When I point out this will require them to spend the rest of their life surrounded by losers, they don't like seeing that.
It is possible for people to discuss the pros and cons of various options, in order to come up with the best workable solution, without turning it into personal attacks on each other. The key is to explore what might help or hurt the outcome, after considering all the potential alternatives. It's OK to discover an option might be less than ideal without needing to blame and criticize the person who came up with the option.
Many times I've gone on forums to find solutions to challenges. Sometimes people will offer suggestions that I realize won't work for me, but those suggestions spark thought process in my head that allows me to see more effective alternatives. I could point out they were wrong, and their suggestions are dysfunctional, but I actually tend to show appreciation for them helping me to broaden my perspective and see something I previously had not seen.
The question is whether our goal is to broaden our own perspective or to artificially raise oneself up by pushing others down... doing all in our power to destroy them. Without giving respect, we can never expect to receive respect.
That is the way debates should go without there being hostility or insults to the other party for their beliefs as to why, but the issue comes down to the passion each person has for their stance. A lot of time when it becomes reactionary and defaults to insults like that, it is the person acting out because they are being challenged in a way that they either can't form a defending counterpoint or are trying to shut the argument down with aggression and dismissing it.
I can think of a very prominent one that I got involved with a little over a month ago regarding Kyle Rittenhouse on the site here. Needless to say, it was unpleasant and it only shows me that there is barely middle ground and it quickly disintegrates depending on who you talk to.
It is tricky when one person assumes something that is a lie as their premise and everything they argue is based on that assumption. They can have a thousand arguments you can dismiss by just saying the shared underlying premise is false but that's not very exciting or satisfying. And, indeed, to those with an agenda the whole purpose of debating was never to win the argument logically - it is only to get their narrative in the heads of the spectators. This is called "arguing in bad faith," or at least a variation of it. Such people prey on being entitled to automatic respect. That's their "foot in the door" to getting their scam heard. To a scammer, the only bad attention is no attention.
12.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
It's called "priming" deary, and it's HOW you win debates.
You think facts and figures are all it takes? If it was that easy, then there would be no need for lawyers or courts - in fact there would be no need for media or mass communication either.
But I can't think you this naïve and think you mean "decorum" instead of respect. Mainly as respect is earned - not just given, and certainly not to opponents and probable enemies.
You seem like the sort of unassuming person we see die first in horror movies.
Yes you've lost this debate, and are probably none the wiser for it. Don't gatekeep these things, kiddo.
Well sometimes no respect is needed. If i chose to debate you and my opinion is 1 + 1 = 7 you're out of your mind to have respect for my opinion. Right?
Now take that ridiculous example and apply the same thought to such popular modern discussions such as "if a man sucks his girlfriends penis is he straight or gay?" And you can see why there is no respect in many disagreements these days. We have left the realm of the rational and therefore rational behavior is out the window in favor of emotion.
Facts might not care about your feelings but feelings do not care about your facts. So when you start a debate based off zero facts, your conclusion will also end with zero facts.
Is well I do not answer this kind of question. My questions are mostly on politics and geopolitics.
If during a real-life discussion I hear people say for example that the coronavirus does not exist, I do not insult them, I do not respond and I end up ignoring the person.
You can act in different ways, try to have a debate on serious subjects. Or you can waste your energy and time answering questions you deem stupid by insulting people who ask those stupid questions.
Usually anyway you will get nothing good when you argue with someone who believes in things who seem completely out of touch with the real world, because you couldn’t reason with them. In this case insulting is useless, and is not part of wisdom. ignoring this stuff is much better, for this focus on really interesting stuff
Well my example sadly is a political question these days unfortunately.
"I hear people say for example that the coronavirus does not exist" i understand what you're saying but im 99% sure you are not understanding their argument. I can't speak for everyone who says this but I've never heard anyone say that and mean it literally. Generally they mean that the coronavirus as a dangerous and deadly disease everyone needs to fear does not exist. Just like if you told me mice were 10ft tall and ate babies and i said uh yeah mice aren't real. I dont mean mice mice i mean mice as you just described mice are not real.
someone told me that the coronavirus does not exist, that's why I took this example.
But my point was to say that for example, both of us are talking about a political subject such as abortion, you give me your point of view on the matter, and I give you mine, if for example you insult me just because that I do not share your opinion, then that poses a problem because our debate does not concern any more the debates of idea and it becomes personal attacks.
I must admit that I have already on this site to be insulted and like an idiot I overreacted to the provocation. Now I'm just going my way.
I am for the debates, you respect me and I respect you, and let's start the debate. Well, it's just my take on things lol
This is a page out of dirty politics. Why do they do it? Because it works! Throw enough money behind a repetitive message that isn't true and after a while people believe it. The internet is a mob. Just like society. It doesn't matter if you're right. It doesn't even necessarily matter if your argument is fully convincing. It matters how many people you can get to flock to your banner and support you. This is psychology believe it or not. And when your stance is hard to defend? No problem. Don't! Just discredit your adversary. I know you don't agree with this I don't really either but this is the world we live in anymore. People don't like anything that may upend their core beliefs and understanding of the world. People don't want truth. They want their version of the truth. They want whatever reinforces their already held beliefs.
BIG difference in the potential of 'can' vs. 'will' and 'do' ~
In High School I took 'Debate' and 'Extemporaneous Speech; You CAN challenge an Opponent's beliefs WITHOUT stooping to personal insults Those having WEAK arguments or positions resort to seeking to elicit reinforcing audience prejudices... REVIEW EX-Pres. Trump's speeches! HIS 'presidential library' should prove "interesting"~
Most people are fine when they are part of the majority and comfortable with how things are going.
However whenever a political shift occurs and changes start happening quickly in favour of thr other side, fear then sets in and in the absence of a solid counter argument to the change, people will then start attacking the person.
Its not exclusive to right or left, both sides do it. Its fear of the other side winning and forcing their opinions on everyone else.
No. Society is so divided that respect is impossible and improper. If you truly believe your opponents are as hazardously wrong as most of us do these days, then it would be profoundly unethical to show them any respect. We're not quibbling over tax rates anymore. We're arguing over whether it's okay to chop your son's dick off. That's not something we can agree to disagree on.
I wish I could say that there are people that could but honestly nowadays I don't think so. People are easily triggered and made angry the second someone disagrees. It takes a lot for someone to get a grip and swallow their pride and just listen to someone else's opinion and respect it.
We can debate if both people understand how to not get their feelings hurt and start calling the other person names. Also both sides must be able to present actual facts, not the TV's interpretation of facts. Some people will find a meme made by a periodical like the onion which A lot of us know fabricate the news that they publish. And tried to disprove something someone says who has a reliable reference. So I do believe debating cordially is possible but not likely.
People are way too entitled, opinionated and insecure to have a decent discussion or debate. There still are many intellectual people tho who are willing to listen to what others have to say even tho it would make 0 sense but still it's the best way to understand someone's mindset and present an argument opposing the views in a distinguished manner.
People are all horrible now and to me politics is just a bunch of fake division BS. The issues that I feel strongly about are the ones I am worried about the most because they affect my health and my well being. The people who disagree with me do nothing but insult and ignore the truth because of their need to win the argument against their political enemies. I don't care about any of that BS I think with logic.
Sure but there somethings not open to debate. science and facts are not open to debate. How were should apply our knowledge of science and fact in going forward is open to debate. Climate change evolution vaccines and January 6th are not up for debate. What we do about them is.
Very good that you see this. We have devolved from the concept of different opinions to, my opinion is right and you are wrong. The foundation of the Classical Liberal Arts education was founded on debate, acceptance of opinion and the search for truth. That does not exist. We now have a socialist system that borders on totalitarian thinking. There is only one way to think. Just like Nazi Germany and Communist China.
I agree. I think people have become even more angry and frustrated. Isolation and the internet will do that. Loss of social etiquette. Also, people seem to be getting more selfish.
The left wants to destroy my country. The republicans tried being nice and the democrats exploited that niceness to ram through more bullshit. How do you debate civilly with someone whose goals are your destruction?
That will always depend who you are debating. It's more the personality than the ideas, points. A brilliant debater remains calm and allows the fool to appear if he/she becomes heated.
Up to the democrats and their base. Ignorant narcissists who think they are morally and intellectually superior than their counterparts in the Republican Party
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
