Is rational discussion/debate disappearing?

[amlove21]

So I agree with all said so far. The one thing I would love to see more of is, "I disagree. I think you're wrong; but ok."

Where did THAT shit go? What if I told you we can talk about stuff, I can say, "I think you're wrong and I don't agree, and we don't need to agree" and just go on with life? I don't need to see your point of view, I can totally use facts to support my position even thought you don't like those facts, and just because you hold an opinion doesn't mean that opinion isn't open to straight up assault.

It's both sides of the fence at this point. The right has learned very weird lessons from the left on whining any time someone dares question them, and the left has just perfected the victim process throughout the years.

In short, yea, rational discussion and honest debate is breathing it's agonal respirations at this point.

 

[digrar]

Unfortunately that option does not exist if you're conservative, hetero, white, and/or male.

Obviously the whole world is your safe place if you fit into that category...

 

[AWP]

A debating trend I've noticed:

Someone makes a statement or argument. The other then does one of two things: they twist Person A's words or they ignore the statement go off on their own tangent. You ask a Yes or No question, but receive anything but one of those options. Wash, rinse, repeat ad nauseam. They eventually "win" because you walk away and by never acknowledging your point of view.

I do believe the Left triggers far easier than the Right, but this is anecdotal. I see it on both sides, but I notice it more from the Left. Even just Left of center has a problem with debate. I find debating problems with the far Right much more than I do with Right of center.

I'm not a huge fan of Reagan, but I long for the days of he and Tip O'Neill hashing out issues.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

I'm not a huge fan of Reagan, but I long for the days of he and Tip O'Neill hashing out issues.

Yep.

 

[medicchick]

A debating trend I've noticed:

Someone makes a statement or argument. The other then does one of two things: they twist Person A's words or they ignore the statement go off on their own tangent. You ask a Yes or No question, but receive anything but one of those options. Wash, rinse, repeat ad nauseam. They eventually "win" because you walk away and by never acknowledging your point of view.

I do believe the Left triggers far easier than the Right, but this is anecdotal. I see it on both sides, but I notice it more from the Left. Even just Left of center has a problem with debate. I find debating problems with the far Right much more than I do with Right of center.

I'm not a huge fan of Reagan, but I long for the days of he and Tip O'Neill hashing out issues.

So much this. You can only beat your head against a wall trying to explain before you just give up. If I want a non answer to a simple question I'll ask my (almost) 8 year old if she's hungry.

 

[CQB]

The Lefts solution:

 

[Muppet]

Agreed with all mentioned here. I have lost many "friends" from social media over my views. I see it more on the left but I have a few bros from my Bragg days that are right wing, Christian wackadoodles that have gone on the attack when a "good conversation" was being had. I think, things are so emotional these days, media is at fault, folks have their opinions and are deeply rooted in that. I recently had a discussion last week, with Maria's sister, a liberal. She posted a meme about gun control, something to do with lesbians and gun owners needing guns to make up for lack of dick.

I brought up the 2A and right to defend myself and those I love, all of that jazz, including our inalienable, inherent rights, quoting the Bill of Rights, our creator, all that stuff. Some liberal shill / one of her friends gets on and says, "where does God come into this". Again, I break it down, add a link to the Bill of Rights, the ladies husband gets on and acts like a total jack ass and I know the guy, he acted real tool baggish. So, from there, I said, "it's not my fault that you are a beta male that has his balls in his wife's purse, needing to defend her on a perfectly fine conversation. I even added that we can link up to talk about it man to man over lunch. No matter what, some folks cannot hear the truth.

M.

 

[Stretcher Jockey]

One of the tings I've noticed with my generation (sorry everyone) is that people almost have an interest in being offended. It would appear that the more offended you are, the more valid your point is. Its like there is some "offended hierarchy" and obviously if you're a straight white male you're at the bottom and no matter how factual your opinion is, its invalid when talking to anyone else. Ad hominem attacks have taken over almost every single discussion I've tried to have with coworkers with a small few exceptions over the past few years. Its gotten to the point where either I avoid political discussions completely, or start all of them out saying if you invalidate my facts because I'm a white guy, the talk is over. I've got no interest in talking to people who dont want facts and just want to stir the pot.

 

[Dame]

...if you invalidate my facts because I'm a white guy, the talk is over.

OMG, fucking priceless.

 

[Marauder06]

Obviously the whole world is your safe place if you fit into that category...

Obvi. :)

 

[AWP]

Obvi. :)

SJW's are the new Nightstalkers. Outrage anywhere in the world, +/- 30 seconds. SJWDQ!

 

[Devildoc]

So I agree with all said so far. The one thing I would love to see more of is, "I disagree. I think you're wrong; but ok."

Where did THAT shit go? What if I told you we can talk about stuff, I can say, "I think you're wrong and I don't agree, and we don't need to agree" and just go on with life? I don't need to see your point of view, I can totally use facts to support my position even thought you don't like those facts, and just because you hold an opinion doesn't mean that opinion isn't open to straight up assault.

It's both sides of the fence at this point. The right has learned very weird lessons from the left on whining any time someone dares question them, and the left has just perfected the victim process throughout the years.

In short, yea, rational discussion and honest debate is breathing it's agonal respirations at this point.

Hard agree. One of my favorite Latin phrases is modus vivendi: agree to disagree.

 

[Devildoc]

A debating trend I've noticed:

Someone makes a statement or argument. The other then does one of two things: they twist Person A's words or they ignore the statement go off on their own tangent. You ask a Yes or No question, but receive anything but one of those options. Wash, rinse, repeat ad nauseam. They eventually "win" because you walk away and by never acknowledging your point of view.

I do believe the Left triggers far easier than the Right, but this is anecdotal. I see it on both sides, but I notice it more from the Left. Even just Left of center has a problem with debate. I find debating problems with the far Right much more than I do with Right of center.

I'm not a huge fan of Reagan, but I long for the days of he and Tip O'Neill hashing out issues.

Ad hominem argument: Attack the person rather than the argument. Straw man fallacy (also, ignoratio elenchi): create the illusion of winning an argument by changing the subject of the argument.

Debate, for-real, true debate has rules, and the rules are predicated that you are using facts that you can substantiate. Also a rule is it is incumbent upon the person "calling out a fact" to prove it wrong, rather than force the originator to "back it up."

As for Reagan and Tip O'Neill, they were political enemies, but personal friends. Reagan had a lot of friends who were democrats, and often invited them to the White House in the evening to talk over drinks. Civility has died.

 

[DC]

What happened to when your wrong you it own and move on? I think it starts there in this case of discussion.

 

[Topkick]

At one time, Reagan was a democrat. His belief in a strong national defense and a distrust in communism played a major role in his switching parties. He was able to maintain a relationship with his democrat friends, evident by their part in protecting him during the Iran-Contra affairs.

 

[SaintKP]

What happened to when your wrong you it own and move on? I think it starts there in this case of discussion.

It's easier to keep fighting and not accept the fact that you may be wrong and let your pride be hurt. No one wants to be embarrassed or seem like they don't know what they're talking about, so the natural reaction is anger.

I think part of the reason why we've reached this point is due to our over reliance on electronic communication and how more often than not we communicate almost anonymously now. While being anonymous gives you more freedom to express your desires and feelings, it also removes the social dynamic of having a face to face discussion with a good bottle of whiskey as support.

I can't count how many times I've been out with family or friends and seen groups of young adults and teenagers absorbed entirely into their phones, with zero conversation taking place. When everything can be told through a snap, tweet, or a tag, why should you have to learn how to effectively communicate through listening and understanding?

I'm just going to use my roommate as an example here, he is almost 5 years younger than me, but he is almost reliant on social media. When it comes to talking about life, bills, or just general shooting the shit he is almost non existent conversationally speaking. Am I cherry picking an example? Yeah, sort of, but I still feel like it's emblematic of the problems that are facing currently.

I think it has less to do with party lines, and more to do with how we interact as human beings.

 

[Isiah6:8]

What happened to when your wrong you it own and move on? I think it starts there in this case of discussion.

I would add, what happened to learning from someone with a different viewpoint. If people viewed discussions as an opportunity to learn, and not an opportunity to give themselves a sense of worth for attempting to "win", things could be a lot different.

I think things would benefit from backing off a bit from confrontational conversation. But everyone's thoughts are so precious these days...

 

[x SF med]

Ok... my take on this discussion...

Discussion based on offense has taken the place of discussion/debate based on facts. The failure to teach, at an early age, the art and science of debate, rhetorical analysis, and use of language to forward one's studied opinion is lost. Not that opinion based on belief/faith is wrong, but it is merely that, faith or belief based, religion/spirituality is fully dependent on this. But wholly factual debate, requires study and analysis of both sides of an issue, forming an opinion based on facts in evidence coupled with an individual's belief system and moral/ethical code. An argument based on, my generation believes, or the left/the right says, or any other non-researched outside 'correct view' is fallacious because it is somebody else's dictate. Look at how well that's worked for dictatorships of the past and present.

Again, just my .02, let the debate/argument of my statement begin.

 

[DC]

Nowadays it’s social media all caps or screaming at each other(ie antifi). Hard to discuss when you don’t want to listen. A lot to do with education as well. An example is socialism is better than democracy. These kids actually believe it’s a better way of governing. None of which know spit about che guvera and Castro’s war on humanity.

 

[DocIllinois]

Ok... my take on this discussion...

Discussion based on offense has taken the place of discussion/debate based on facts. The failure to teach, at an early age, the art and science of debate, rhetorical analysis, and use of language to forward one's studied opinion is lost. Not that opinion based on belief/faith is wrong, but it is merely that, faith or belief based, religion/spirituality is fully dependent on this. But wholly factual debate, requires study and analysis of both sides of an issue, forming an opinion based on facts in evidence coupled with an individual's belief system and moral/ethical code. An argument based on, my generation believes, or the left/the right says, or any other non-researched outside 'correct view' is fallacious because it is somebody else's dictate. Look at how well that's worked for dictatorships of the past and present.

Again, just my .02, let the debate/argument of my statement begin.

I agree with all of the above.


My basic method of debate or discussion.

Online, things very often seem to just keep rolling along anyway after the process derails into a "No", IME, so I don't use it much there.