Debate threads – assuming a lack of understanding

[ead79]

I’ve noticed something becoming more and more common in the debate threads here on the CB. When someone disagrees with someone else, people often say that they are “uninformed” or “just don’t understand” or are “close-minded.” Why do some people assume that if you disagree with them you don’t properly grasp the issue?

Take, for example, the abortion issue. I’m pro-life, but I completely understand the pro-choice point of view. While I disagree with them, I don’t think pro-choice people are uninformed or lack understanding. I simply think we disagree on the issue.

It almost seems that some people feel that anyone who disagrees with them is less intelligent than they are. It’s a shame that people can’t do a better job of respecting someone who disagrees instead of trying to say they’re an idiot. People on both sides of many of the debates I’ve seen here lately have done it, and it is sort of disheartening.

Any thoughts on why people do this and why it seems to have become more prevalent?

 

[perdidobay]

So true, isn't it? I think people do this to "justify" their own positions...if you don't agree with me, it's because you're (fill in the blank). Absolves them of having to admit there is another viewpoint and a person's right to that viewpoint.

 

[lucyblondecat]

My thoughts are because most people here don't know the first thing about how to debate. The idea is to debate the ideas without making it personal. The opposite seems to be true here on the DIS. Its just mud slinging. I'm not above it myself.

(to the OP: you are not one of those people. Although we rarely agree I like reading your posts and you seem like a very mature and thoughtful person who stays true to what she believes in without going over the top in a tirade against those who don't hold the same beliefs).

 

[Christine]

I know what you're talking about but let me add another thought.

I have been involved in debates where people don't agree with me. I don't think they are less intelligent or uninformed. In fact, some posters who have opposing views from mine have done really good jobs of explaining their beliefs and I respect and understand their beliefs even if I don't agree. But more often than not, some people have their beliefs and can't even explain why they have them. They make ignorant statements that make me cringe. Those people I feel are uninformed (and some of the uninformed, ignorant views might even be on my side). So I think it's all how a person presents their beliefs. There always seems to be a group of people that have a very strong belief with no rationality as to why they think that way--only that they drank the yummy Kool-Aid, do you know what I mean?

 

[cardaway]

I agree. It's out of control on any thread involving Israel. If you don't 100% agree with Israel you must be ignorant on the subject.

And I agree that all your arguments on abortion always read like they were coming from somebody who really knew both sides.

 

[roseprincess]

I’ve noticed something becoming more and more common in the debate threads here on the CB. When someone disagrees with someone else, people often say that they are “uninformed” or “just don’t understand” or are “close-minded.” Why do some people assume that if you disagree with them you don’t properly grasp the issue?

Take, for example, the abortion issue. I’m pro-life, but I completely understand the pro-choice point of view. While I disagree with them, I don’t think pro-choice people are uninformed or lack understanding. I simply think we disagree on the issue.

It almost seems that some people feel that anyone who disagrees with them is less intelligent than they are. It’s a shame that people can’t do a better job of respecting someone who disagrees instead of trying to say they’re an idiot. People on both sides of many of the debates I’ve seen here lately have done it, and it is sort of disheartening.


Any thoughts on why people do this and why it seems to have become more prevalent?

Well said!
I have noticed the last few months, there are more and more younger posters signing up here, on hte Disboards. Whether there are more younger age people(high school and college age), that could be it. Coming in from myspace.com, etc. Not going for or against these younger people, but I have noticed some disers have been getting more mean-spirited in the last few months.

 

[ckay87]

My thoughts are because most people here don't know the first thing about how to debate. The idea is to debate the ideas without making it personal. The opposite seems to be true here on the DIS. Its just mud slinging. I'm not above it myself.

(to the OP: you are not one of those people. Although we rarely agree I like reading your posts and you seem like a very mature and thoughtful person who stays true to what she believes in without going over the top in a tirade against those who don't hold the same beliefs).

I agree. I enjoy a proper debate although I do stay out of those where I actually am "misinformed" (I actually don't know it all)

In a good debate I've actually been known to change my mind about issues or at least become more ... sympathetic toward the other side.

 

[Lanshark]

Debating involves giving ones opinions, hopefully based on facts, and backing it up with those facts. You exchange ideas and facts and try not to get too emotional. I've learned a lot from civil debates.

When you're demeaning someone else to boaster your stance on an issue then you have a pretty poor stance to begin with. I shouldn't have to destroy the person I disagree with to make my point. That's not debating, that's being arrogant and self righteous.

 

[caitycaity]

I have been involved in debates where people don't agree with me. I don't think they are less intelligent or uninformed. In fact, some posters who have opposing views from mine have done really good jobs of explaining their beliefs and I respect and understand their beliefs even if I don't agree. But more often than not, some people have their beliefs and can't even explain why they have them. They make ignorant statements that make me cringe. Those people I feel are uninformed (and some of the uninformed, ignorant views might even be on my side). So I think it's all how a person presents their beliefs. There always seems to be a group of people that have a very strong belief with no rationality as to why they think that way--only that they drank the yummy Kool-Aid, do you know what I mean?

i agree with this.

i also think on the israel topic that there are some people who really do believe that israel is always right no matter what and that you are ignorant if you disagree. this is the way they have been raised and it is unlikely that they will change. some of my very good friends irl are this way and we just have to agree to disagree on that topic and not talk about it.

 

[wvrevy]

I can sympathize with you on the abortion debate. I understand both sides of the issue (I'm pro-choice, btw) and where they are coming from. I even understand a bit of the theory behind the two sides and why those conflict to the point that no real debate is possible (one side approaches it from an intellectual standpoint, the other from an emotional standpoint, and no argument pitting those two views against each other can ever really be resolved).

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?

This certainly isn't true of all posters that disagree with me, obviously. There are many that will back up their views with evidence they feel is as strong as my own. Hey, I've even learned a thing or two from those posters. But the ones that simply attack anyone with a different viewpoint 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.

 

[Christine]

I can sympathize with you on the abortion debate. I understand both sides of the issue (I'm pro-choice, btw) and where they are coming from. I even understand a bit of the theory behind the two sides and why those conflict to the point that no real debate is possible (one side approaches it from an intellectual standpoint, the other from an emotional standpoint, and no argument pitting those two views against each other can ever really be resolved).

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?

This certainly isn't true of all posters that disagree with me, obviously. There are many that will back up their views with evidence they feel is as strong as my own. Hey, I've even learned a thing or two from those posters. But the ones that simply attack anyone with a different viewpoint 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.

wvrevy--I just wanted to say that you are one of the "debaters" that does a GREAT job. You are obviously very strong in your anti-Bush beliefs, but rather than sit there and just sling mud, you always come up with facts that back up what you are saying. I have noticed, though, that some people REALLY hate that!

 

[honkeyking]

I agree. It's out of control on any thread involving Israel. If you don't 100% agree with Israel you must be ignorant on the subject.

And I agree that all your arguments on abortion always read like they were coming from somebody who really knew both sides.

Interesting you would post about this!

 

[ead79]

As usual, all your posts have gotten me thinking. I can always count on the DIS for that!

I do agree that some people hold a viewpoint that they cannot back up with facts. Sometimes they just don't have them, and sometimes it's not a "fact-based" argument. For example, on religious threads, I don't expect someone to "prove" their beliefs to me with facts. That would be an example of a topic where everyone's views are based on belief/faith as opposed to being able to definitively prove one way or another that God does or doesn't exist using facts.

On the other hand, there have certainly been threads here where people hold a viewpoint that could be supported with evidence, but they either don't have any or don't use it and use opinions as fact instead. I enjoy reading the opposing point of view much more when backed up with facts, and I'm sure those on the other side of the aisle from me feel the same. It's educational and interesting when debate is informed, whether or not I agree with the viewpoint. I have learned many things here on the DIS, and I enjoy the opportunity to hear from people from different areas and walks of life than my own.

Also, revy, I don't mind a spirited debate, LOL!

lucyblondecat, thank you so much--that is such a nice compliment. It means a lot to me. I don't have to agree with the other side, but I think it makes me a better person if I can understand their views.

 

[Nancyg56]

I think that the "debates" get very heated because there are those who take a differing opinion very personally. It is sometimes very hard to realize that another's opinion is not "all about me". I have seen that this is especialy true when religion or politics are debated. I am also pro-life, but I understand that my belief may not be the same as another.

I have strong opinions regarding Pres Bush and his foreign policy, and for a long time in my home we were like Mary Matelin and James Carville. I'm not sure that I would have entered into a frank discussion online because I doubt I would have been able to articulate how I felt without offending someone. My DH could listen to my reasons without biting me, and I could disagree with his position without degrading him. (I'm happy to say that after many years he and I almost agree.)

People are not required to always agree, but it would be nice to have a discussion that does not deteriorate into namecalling and cruel comments. It is probable easier to behave badly on a message board than to behave this way face to face. Facts are not always required, sometimes an ideology must be on faith, but I also think that before calling someone on the carpet, a bit of evidence would be nice.

 

[mrsltg]

I agree with the OP. Many, many people, especially in political debates, post as though they are reading from a script. Many times, in fact, they are. Whether you consider yourself democratic or republican, it's always the same regurgitated talking points. It annoys me on a "news" program and it annoys me here. People do this because they feel like they have to defend xyz and knock down abc (changes depending upon side of the aisle). It's the usual suspects all of the time. They may point to research, but it's political no matter what. Anyone with a dog in the fight gets immediate scrutiny. For every example of x you can find an example of y.

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.

Let's see what kind of debate this turns into...

 

[cardaway]

Interesting you would post about this!

Interesting that I agree about ead79's posts or something else?

 

[wvrevy]

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).

The part of that particular debate I find annoying is the hypocrisy shown when people object to stem cell research then don't object to IVF, which results in the destruction of many more "babies" than research would ever use.

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

 

[offwegotoneverland]

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).

 

[Maleficent13]

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".

An excellent point, and one I had not thought of. I think sometimes I assume that everyone had the same education I did, which included debate training. I actually have no idea if they still do that or not in schools.

 

[offwegotoneverland]

An excellent point, and one I had not thought of. I think sometimes I assume that everyone had the same education I did, which included debate training. I actually have no idea if they still do that or not in schools.

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.