Debate threads – assuming a lack of understanding

[Missy1961]

Just a thought but does anyone else think this may be due to the lack of formal debating done in schools?

At the risk of sounding older than I want to admit to...we used to have to debate in class with the teacher assigning the side you would be presenting (ie not you choose your side per your personal viewpoint).

I think the "practice" of debating from this techinque forces you to use facts/information related to ones position without it being "personal".

But having said that there is a darn good reason the cliche of not talking about religion & politics at a dinner party happens....people have strong feelings on some "hot button" topics and well it's pretty hard to stop people from being people.

On the web I think this is made worse by the fact that you cannot "see" the person you are "talking" too. If I had to look someone in the eye and say something like "what a loser" I don't think I could...but it's a whole lot easier to to type it. (I don't think I've ever typed it either but you get what I mean).

That's an interesting point. I think you may be on to something here. I remember learning the points of debating in 9th Grade Social Studies class 31 (!) years ago. I bet with all the other things they have to do now in schools--all the testing, etc.--they don't have time for this anymore.

But I know what the OP means. There are many great debaters here on the DIS, on both sides of the aisle. I've learned so much from so many of you, and in some cases, had my eyes opened to a new point of view. Sometimes, I've even changed my POV. But when the mud slingers come in, that's when I leave. And it drives me crazy when certain people, when asked to provide proof, say something like "I don't have time to do research.". And when others provide proof, those same people belittle the source. That's not debating.

I'm sorry this got long. I've often been too scared to debate here, but I've enjoyed reading many of them. And most of you who responded here & the OP are the people whose threads & posts I try to read. Thank you!

 

[Maleficent13]

For myself it was an extra credit class, not required in anything. (and that was about 18 years ago eek!). I know my younger brother didn't take it and has trouble debating his way out of a wet paper bag...in a formal way.

This made me LOL, because my younger brother DID take it, and was also on the debate team for 3 years. Add to this the knowledge of how to push all his sister's buttons, and you have a grade A, # 1 debater.

 

[cardaway]

As somebody who had a semester of debate class I believe I understand the why it was brought up. Anybody who was ever forced to argue the side they are personally against gained some very valuable insight. In the case I remember the most I had to argue in FAVOR of parental warning labels on media (back before there were any) and actually "won" the debate per the teacher doing the moderating.

But there is the key IMO. There is no moderator here in that sense so that kind of debate would really never work. There is also the problem of biased sourcesk, with people rarely ever taking them seriously. Basically only pointing out bias when people back up their opinions. I don't have a problem with that since I can admit there is no way I personally could seriously accept every source people quote here.

 

[merryg]

ead79
Thank you for this posting. I have been thinking the same thing. I have found that sometimes people just have to "Agree to Disagree".

Thanks again for post. Also, I love all of your beautiful pics.

merryg

 

[Mimi Q]

Well said Elisabeth.

 

[VSL]

The best recent example I can think of lately is the stem cell "debate" thread. Regardless of where you land on the issue there are people who say, "Well, if someone you loved suffered you'd agree". That annoys the heck out of me. One, don't presume what anyone else has experienced. Two, don't assume that their experience would lead to the same conclusion as yours. UUUGGGHHH. Ok, off my chest.

I didn't read all of that thread (or post on it) but I read a few pages and it was interesting that at least one poster who disagreed with stem cell research was paraplegic(sp?) - and so possibly one of the people who may benefit from it.

Actually, the stem cell debate is similar to the abortion debate, in that one side is viewing it logically, while the other is viewing it emotionally. Again, it is hard to have a real debate when the two sides can't agree on the terms to be used (a blastocyst is not a baby, but one side says that it is).

[snip]

Again, it's logic vs. emotion, and there can be no true debate when that is the case.

I agree. A lot of these debates are a case of logic vs. emotion, and so they can't be truly debated (and certainly not resolved).

FWIW, I'm horribly, coldly logical when it comes to some very emotional issues, but I do sometimes end up on the other side (although not with the emotion part).

 

[VSL]

As somebody who had a semester of debate class I believe I understand the why it was brought up. Anybody who was ever forced to argue the side they are personally against gained some very valuable insight.

No debating classes here, but we seemed to do enough of it in English and History classes.

I even find myself doing it now. It's become a bad habit, but if someone says something, I can't resist taking the opposite stance (even if I completely agree with them), just to see what they really think - it's a personality flaw.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

I run hot and cold on debate topics. Sometimes it seems like I find myself in the middle of several at one time; at other times it seems as though I haven't been in one for a while. While I agree to a point, I think there is a slightly more nuanced angle to the "logic v. emotion" dichontomy that you and wvrevy suggest. What keeps the sides of many debates divided is a matter of authority. For instance, I consider myself a logical thinking person (YMMV -and that won't offend me ), but logic is not my ultimate authority. I know this sounds absurd to some of you, but I will try to explain.

My first and foremost way of knowing things is through scripture. Scripture is supported by tradition (the way things have been done and known in the past), reason, and experience. Those of you who share my religious tradition will recognize this as what is called the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral". That's actually kind of a misnomer because scripture is above -not equal to -tradition, reason, and experience. Those three support scripture; they do not work against it.

To give a very elementary example, let's take the issue of smoking cigarettes. Scripture tells us that our bodies are a temple, and that we are created in the image of God. OK... how do the other three support that? My particular denomination has a tradition of standing against tobacco use. Reason tells me that smoking is bad for me. The overwhelming consensus of medical opinion can't be wrong. Experience also tells me that smoking is bad. I know Joe, Sam, Larry, Kate, Mary, and Sally who died of lung cancer who were also smokers. Again, forgive this sketchy example... but hopefully the idea comes across.

I should probably mention too that scripture as primary authority is more a matter of understanding the whole of scripture and NOT grasping for individual snippets of text to support one's opinion. That is disingenuous and lazy thinking IMO.

Sooooo... that's where I come from. I understand full well that what I find authoritative is not the same as what any other person may. But this is what informs my thinking on just about every subject... except WDW touring plans and the NFL

 

[offwegotoneverland]

This made me LOL, because my younger brother DID take it, and was also on the debate team for 3 years. Add to this the knowledge of how to push all his sister's buttons, and you have a grade A, # 1 debater.

That's nothing...I can tickle my brother from any distance as long as he can see my fingers wiggling at him. When you achieve that level of sibling mastering nothing can stop you from world domination. (oh and my mom I can tickle verbally even over the phone or by email...it's a gift!)

 

[VSL]

For instance, I consider myself a logical thinking person (YMMV -and that won't offend me ), but logic is not my ultimate authority. I know tis sounds absurd to some of you, but I will try to explain.

I can see where you're coming from - and I agree in fact! I guess I didn't think of that in my first post. For me, there is always a moral thing going on in my opinions too (maybe I'm horribly moral? - that doesn't sound right though).

And clearly lots of confusion I don't know where I am now!

Also, to make it clear about the logic vs. emotion thing (does emotion cover everything from morality to personal belief though?), I don't think that a bit of emotion is a bad thing in a debate. If there were no emotions behind some debates (and the resulting outcomes), I think the world would be a bit of a cold place.

Although I think this very simple thread is getting too deep for me now!

 

[Crankyshank]

There's been a lot of excellent thoughts on this thread.
In addition to what's been said, I think we have become more self-absorbed as a society and that's resulted in an increase in "I think this so everyone must think so or they're crazy". and also a lot of people just not intererested in opening their minds and finding out why someone has another viewpoint.

I also feel that people here are getting worse about putting people into nice neat little boxes because of one opinion that person might have on one subject. Ex: on the Saddam thread Charade was accused of being liberal which I am still over - just because of comments on a thread about illegal immigration. It's like people on both sides drew a line in the sand and assigned people sides and automatically dismiss others on the opposite end. Despite fact that a majority of people fall somewhere in the middle.

Fortunately there are enough people that are interested in actual debate and exchange of ideas here to make it worthwhile for the most part.

 

[sameyeyam]

As a newcomer I made the mistake of starting a thread about giving up your seat on Disney buses. You would have thought I started WWIII!

I find individuals on the Community Board to be much more open minded to comments and less likely to attack than those on the Parks or Hotels boards.

Sometimes I want to say - it's just a discussion about a refillable mug. It's not really important or the end of the world, get over it!!

Trust me I usually understand the issues I am talking about, otherwise I wouldn't be commenting, I would be asking questions instead.

I really do not understand people that can't accept your opinion. They feel like they need to make you change your ways or life as we know it will end. So right now I'm going to say what I really feel:

1. I don't care if you refill your mug from 10 years ago. I might even do it myself next year!
2. I will always put my child on my lap on a bus or give up my seat to elderly or anyone that I feel needs the seat more than I do.
3. If you are really crazy enough to want to bring a toaster or crockpot & cook on your vacation, have at it. ( I have worked for a hotel chain for 17 years, want to know what burns hotel rooms down?? It's not crockpots, it's cigarettes!!!!).
4. I never knew about pool hopping, but know that I have heard about it on the Disboard, I just might try it.
5. I lie about my age all the time! So why should I have any problem lieing about my childs age?

Boy that sure felt good!!! And guess what I totally understand what I just said!

 

[Missy1961]

What a great thread! Lots of good points here. Thanks, Elisabeth.

 

[What the Heck]

But I think a certain amount of "I'm right, you're wrong" is to be expected on any topic that has two very different viewpoints represented. I mean, if I didn't believe that you were wrong, I wouldn't hold an opposing opinion at all. Still, I often get labled as being the type of poster you are talking about, just because I am adamantly anti-Bush. But I am more than willing to back up my views on any given topic, and expect someone with opposing views to be able to do the same. If they can't, then what other conclusion should I come to but that they are ignorant of all the facts or have used them to come to an illogical conclusion?

I agree with you until the last sentance. Who is to decide that a conclusion is illogical? There was one post I read on another website after the 2004 election where one person of the Democratic party was saying that since Republicans can't think straight they should not have the right to vote. He clearly thinks that is the logical conclusion, and you know there are some (from both sides of the aisle if you change Republican for Democrat) that would agree with him.

or try to distract from the point of debate by bringing up side issues (usually, this involves bringing up Clinton's personal issues)...sorry, but I have very little respect for those people. No more, in fact, than I do for the person they support.

I feel about Clinton the same as you feel about Bush. There are also those who belive that Clinton should not be used for any debate under any circumstances, yet feel free to go as far as bringing Nixon into the same debate. I agree that bringing him in as a side issue does no good, but when he is brought in legitamately (for instance, the topic of Iraq and whether Hussein was a threat - why is it not legitamate to bring in Clinton's comments about that subject?) why is it ok for the other side to disregard those facts?

Not that you do these things. I have a great deal of respect for your debates,even though I disagree with what 95% of them? I agree with the poster who thinks it may be because of the age of some of the posters (in answer to the OP). I know that when I was younger, I knew a lot more about nothing than I do today. When I was 20 something, my thoughts were paramount, now I am happy to share the stage with others. Just my thoughts.

 

[What the Heck]

Again, it's logic vs. emotion, and there can be no true debate when that is the case.

Wouldn't this be an excellent topic for a debate thread itself? Isn't this a debate on religion/spirituality?

 

[offwegotoneverland]

Wouldn't this be an excellent topic for a debate thread itself? Isn't this a debate on religion/spirituality?

logic/emotion/spirituality a three cornered debate...now that could take some doing!

 

[NeverlandClub23]

I completely agree with you ead79. I don't understand it either. My favorite is when people say "You and I just have different opinions on the issue. But you're wrong". I've seen this twice. There is no right or wrong on topics. It's all your perspective. I am pro-choice but I can absolutely unserstand why someone would be pro-life. I like Bush but I can understand why some don't like him. It's not about being passionate about what you believe in so you feel like you have to fight it to the death with anyone who disagrees, it's about understanding that others don't feel the same way and that doesn't make them wrong or right. I have seen it alot more lately on the CB and I, too, think it's sad.

 

[Cool-Beans]

I don't participate in much of the political stuff, but sometimes read them (except those threads where everyone is agreeing with everyone else. Yawn.) And I, too, wish that folks would stop with the implications that there is something wrong with the other posters. "If only you'd stop watching CNN/FOX and come see the light like I have, you'd know better." Also very tired of the idea that one poster has an opinion because he/she can think for themselves, while those who disagree are mindless sheep. I see this as simple bragging and name-calling, and it is tiresome.

I also wish that they'd stick to a topic. One side makes a point about Bush/Clinton and the other side - rather than addressing it - brings up the other president's shortcomings. Anytime this happens, I think the first poster must have had a decent point, or the new one wouldn't be changing the subject.

 

[ead79]

"If only you'd stop watching CNN/FOX and come see the light like I have, you'd know better." Also very tired of the idea that one poster has an opinion because he/she can think for themselves, while those who disagree are mindless sheep. I see this as simple bragging and name-calling, and it is tiresome.

I totally agree with you about this point. Just because someone disagrees with another person doesn't mean they are mindless. That's the beauty of freedom--our minds can come to different conclusions and it's OK.

 

[MickeyMouseGal]

But when the mud slingers come in, that's when I leave. And it drives me crazy when certain people, when asked to provide proof, say something like "I don't have time to do research.". And when others provide proof, those same people belittle the source. That's not debating.

Exactly! As soon as a debate becomes dueling internet links/quotes, I bow out. What a snooze. I don't even dignify it with a response. However, there have been several times I've been tempted to say, "No, I don't have a link because nobody was transcribing the conversation I was having with my boyfriend/brother/doctor, etc." Then the other person follows up with, "See. I knew you were lying."