The Art of Debate | Imamother

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Advanced Search Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> Interesting Discussions

The Art of Debate

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

youngishbear

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 9:35 pm

"One assumption implicit in the art of rhetoric is that people--even intelligent people--can disagree with each other. Sometimes they disagree with each other about deeply held beliefs. When such disagreements become pronounced, there are two typical results--either they begin to fight, or they engage in debate...

Usually, when two groups disagree, it is because they do not share certain assumptions...

The best arguments make use of shared assumptions--beliefs that both the writer and the reader can agree about even if they don't yet agree about the entire argument. It's often hard to find this common ground, but once a rhetor does find it, that clever writer can tailor her argument in an essay around that shared belief. Many amateur rhetors think of debate as an "us-versus-them" sort of affair, and that the readers who disagree are the enemy whose inferior arguments must be ground into the dirt. Accordingly, they mistakenly believe that ridiculing or attacking these mistaken beliefs is the most effective way to "win" the argument. These approaches are not usually the best means of persuasion. Such approaches do not constitute good rhetoric (or good manners, for that matter).

Master rhetors find it useful to think of debate as a cooperative, honest venture. This belief works for both a practical and an idealistic reason. On a practical level, people who feel insulted become unnecessarily defensive. Defensive people do not tend to be open-minded about new ideas coming from the mouth that just spewed venom upon the listeners. As a writer or speaker, it is far better to treat those who disagree with you respectfully. If the writer acknowledges disagreement, and acknowledges that her opponents have legitimate points, and carefully considers their concerns, it is far more likely these dissenting souls will consider her worth listening to. A pinch of politeness will work far better than a pound of verbal abuse. That's the practical reason for considering debate as a cooperative rather than confrontational practice.

https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/re......html

amother

Khaki

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 11:02 pm

This is all true, assuming that people are free to disagree about the subject under discussion. However, when one side appeals to authority, there's nothing to talk about. As an example on this site, if someone were to ask why a group has practice x, and members of the group say how dare you disrespect our rebbe/ daas Torah, there's no room for discussion or disagreement, no matter how respectful.

Sorry to go amother, but I think I will be seriously bashed for pointing this out. I'm not trying to pick a fight or undermine chachamim, only to explain why it's hard to have reasonable disagreements.

sequoia

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 11:06 pm

amother wrote:

I agree with your post.

Now, about the amother thing... Suppose someone does indeed disagree vociferously (aka "bash"). Then what? How does it affect you?

youngishbear

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 11:34 pm

amother wrote:

Interesting. I posted as a commentary on the political threads, but it does apply to many topics, obviously.

I think the bashing begins when the questioner is perceived to have an aggressive agenda. It's so important to be super careful when phrasing controversial questions and replies. Posters don't always realize when they come on too strong.

I've seen so many miscommunications and misinterpretations. Short choppy sentences can convey anger, cerebral language can appear critical or condescending, and objective observations can be misconstrued as judgements.

Often the poster does not intend any of that. I guess it's about adopting a curious and open-minded approach, with very careful word choice to convey the intended tone.

marina

Mon, Feb 20 2017, 11:56 pm

thanks for this post youngishbear.

amother

Khaki

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 12:05 am

sequoia wrote:

I agree with your post.

Now, about the amother thing... Suppose someone does indeed disagree vociferously (aka "bash"). Then what? How does it affect you?

Good question. I think that if I post under my name about something like this, then in other threads, people will assume that I mean the worst, even when I don't, and the bad feelings will get in the way of honest discussion. I could be wrong, of course.

MagentaYenta

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 12:47 am

amother wrote:

I post under my screen name, if someone has bad feelings about me based on what I post, that is their problem not mine. I have no way of knowing unless they tell me, and even then I have a choice as to how I react to it.

amother

Khaki

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 1:31 am

MagentaYenta wrote:

I respect that. My choice makes sense to me, and since it doesn't harm others, I feel ok with this way of doing things. As I said, I may be wrong. I understand and respect your point of view, even if it doesn't convince me.

amother

Lavender

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 5:42 am

youngishbear wrote:

Can you give examples from that political thread where you feel that people said the wrong thing, made angry comments and/or didn't argue correctly?

Fox

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 11:12 am

Very interesting post. Thanks, YoungishBear!

I have two thoughts on this:

Who Is Persuaded?
One of the most important elements of argumentation is identifying your audience. IMHO, this is not necessarily obvious on Imamother.

The political threads are an excellent example. There are approximately six of us on each side, and we simply beat one another up with our metaphorical placards. Are any of us actually hoping to persuade the six people opposing us? Doubtful.

Rather, we're playing for the peanut gallery of lurkers and guests.

This is also true in threads about Jewish life. The persuasion is not really directed to the actual posters who disagree or are even neutral; rather, it attempts to influence the mundane values of what might be called "Jewish lifestyle" in 21st century America, often through repetition.

For example, a huge theme is the balance between gashmius and ruchnius. Most of us are the chief procurement officers for our families, and therefore we constantly face decision about how to allocate our resources. Many of the threads about specific items or expenditures are really a way of negotiating what will be considered appropriate in our communities.

The Nature of Evidence
A significant problem on a site like Imamother, that serves different functions for people. is that we vary widely in what we consider to be "evidence."

At the most basic level, there are threads where someone simply wants validation of her feelings but posters respond with arguments regarding her experience. Actually, I've noticed that this problem has diminished lately; people seem to be asking specifically for what they want.

More common are threads that really just highlight personal or communal choices. We can go back and forth endlessly on whether it's better spend $100 on X or Y, but there is ultimately no "evidence" that can be compelling. We are left with P. J. O'Rourke's definition of Sociology: "People do lots of things. We don't know why. Test on Friday."

The knock-down-drag-out catfights usually start when someone substitutes feelings for evidence and then discovers that she can't back up her opinion.

If you post something like, "Cats are better pets for apartment dwellers because they don't have to be taken out and don't need a lot of space or exercise," you'll get a dozen "likes" and perhaps one or two rebuttals that, "I have a dog in my apartment and don't have any trouble."

But try posting, "No decent person would keep a dog cooped up in an apartment!" Now you've got a whole new rhetorical problem: You have to provide evidence that decency is linked to a particular standard of pet care, and you have to prove that dogs shouldn't be kept in apartments.

That's a lot of heavy persuasive lifting, and most people don't have the time or patience. So instead, they just circle back again on the original opinion, adding details to undermine the ethos of the opponent: "Fine. If you think it's perfectly okay to keep a Great Dane in a studio apartment in Manhattan . . . If you don't see that as a problem . . . etc."

But, really, it's all just practice for keeping one step ahead of our kids. Besides, everyone knows that cats are better than dogs.

youngishbear

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 3:09 pm

"Many a long dispute among divines may be thus abridged: It is so; It is not so. It is so; it is not so."

Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack

youngishbear

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 3:25 pm

amother wrote:

Can you give examples from that political thread where you feel that people said the wrong thing, made angry comments and/or didn't argue correctly?

Ah where to begin... I'd really rather not.

So many logical fallacies*! So many misunderstandings! So many sidetracks! And so much mudslinging.

*Seriously. Just reading through a list of fallacies reminds me of imamother threads.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#H6

MagentaYenta

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 3:30 pm

amother wrote:

You will have to explain the bolded to me. How does my posting under my screen name cause harm to others?

youngishbear

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 3:53 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

You will have to explain the bolded to me. How does my posting under my screen name cause harm to others?

Thank you for providing an example of a minor misunderstanding. Smile

I understood the poster to be saying that her use of amother does not harm anyone, so she will continue to do so. I don't think she meant that anyone who posts under their screen name is causing harm.

MagentaYenta

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 3:54 pm

youngishbear wrote:

Thank you for providing an example of a minor misunderstanding. Smile

Ah ok, thanks for the interpretation.

sushilover

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 4:07 pm

Fox wrote:

If you post something like, "Cats are better pets for apartment dwellers because they don't have to be taken out and don't need a lot of space or exercise," you'll get a dozen "likes" and perhaps one or two rebuttals that, "I have a dog in my apartment and don't have any trouble."

But try posting, "No decent person would keep a dog cooped up in an apartment!" Now you've got a whole new rhetorical problem: You have to provide evidence that decency is linked to a particular standard of pet care, and you have to prove that dogs shouldn't be kept in apartments.

That's a lot of heavy persuasive lifting, and most people don't have the time or patience. So instead, they just circle back again on the original opinion, adding details to undermine the ethos of the opponent: "Fine. If you think it's perfectly okay to keep a Great Dane in a studio apartment in Manhattan . . . If you don't see that as a problem . . . etc."

But, really, it's all just practice for keeping one step ahead of our kids. Besides, everyone knows that cats are better than dogs.

Awesome post, as usual, Fox.

What about the fact that the second post would get way more clicks and readers? Yes, it may be harder to back up with evidence, but at least people will be thinking about and discussing the problems of having a dog in an apartment.

In fact, Youngishbear should have titled this thread "Frum Jews Are Terrible Debaters."
LOL

That would have started a rolicking discussion.

youngishbear

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 4:48 pm

sushilover wrote:

That would have started a rolicking discussion.

Ha! That made me laugh.
Do you know me as a provocateur? Wink

Even in my darkest days of horrified dejection after the election, my outbursts of emotion were anguished appeals to the other side to help me make sense of what seemed like utter insanity, as opposed to an attempt at coherent debating.

To be honest, most people aren't very good debaters. I am not a good debater myself, I just happened to start paying attention to the subject recently so I'm noticing flaws.

Page 1 of 1