I don't enjoy debates. Why? Well, because I don't like their confrontational, competitive nature. Nobody enters a debate in order to engage in a discussion on a specific topic; no, they enter a debate in order to win it.
'But, debate is healthy,' you may cry! I beg to differ. It is discussion that is healthy, not debate, and I will add a further caveat: In order for a discussion to be healthy and profitable, it needs to remain civilized. Too many people mistake nasty shit-hurling sessions for 'productive' discussions. Whether you like it or not, yelling and screaming at someone will not open their mind to your ideas. If anything, it will cause your victim's brain to go into full lock-down mode.
Debates can be interesting, I won't deny that. However, most people who listen to them are not doing so in order to add more material to their product-knowledge. No, they are there for one of two reasons: either to see (or hear) the 'other side' get creamed, or to make a decision as to which side they should support. It is very, very rare that debates are staged in order to reconcile one side with the other, and bridges are seldom built through them.
Discussion, on the other hand, seeks to build those bridges. When engaged in respectfully, a proper discussion is a mutual sharing of ideas in a non-hostile and/or non-competitive format. The point is to seek the best possible outcome for everyone involved. In other words, discussion is co-operative in nature.
The discussion of ideas should not take place in the same way a football game does, with the two sides battling it out while their supporters cheer them on from the sidelines. What point is there in that? Victory for the stronger candidate does not automatically equate with victory for the truth. Does presenting a laundry list of facts, complete with bibliography and assorted footnotes, present a better 'argument' than one that comes from a deep understanding of the subject matter? Can you judge truth, or settle a dispute, by rating the performance of the people participating in the discussion or debate with score-card? I don't think so.
Because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.
Matthew 7:29 (NIV)
Whether it be in a debate or a discussion, one of the most annoying things that I have come across are people who vomit up stacks of quotes and references in order to buttress their position. These sorts of people tend to focus on the words, without truly understanding the meaning of they are quoting and/or referencing. This way of learning, understanding, and arguing an idea is as old as recorded history. In biblical times, the scribes and pharisees taught in exactly this way. Everything they said, every idea that they presented, was wrapped in quotes, cross references and attributions. Not a single strand of original thought crept into their teaching.
There is an actual term for this type of arguing/thinking, but I just cannot remember what it is. If anyone has an idea, I'd like to know. In the meantime, I'll just use the term 'sophistry'. This type of sophistry is problematic, because, when an idea is not recognized as coming from source material, it is rejected, and oftentimes rejected with complete arrogance. Entering into a discussion with someone who has been trained in this style of thinking is extremely difficult. In such situations, something akin to the Dunning-Kruger effect seems to come into play; the person trained in this type of sophistry is so blissfully unaware of the circle his thinking is revolving in, that it is impossible for him to recognize the fact.
You cannot successfully present a new idea to someone who cannot understand the concept of a new idea. Nor can you convince them to drop their literalism, and focus on the actual meaning of they are quoting.
I have included a YouTube video below that I found quite interesting. It is a debate between David Wilber (Freedom Hill Community) and Tony Yu (HebrewRootsHeresy). Wilber is using the style I mentioned above, while Tony Yu is doing something extremely interesting - he is presenting his position freestyle. In fact, Yu is less interested in winning a debate, than in getting his idea across to his opponent. The proceedings are expertly chaired by Christian radio host Josh Tolley.
A person who is not deeply familiar with Christian scripture may find themselves quite impressed with Wilber's performance. The truth is, Yu put forth the stronger argument. He could have produced reams of biblical references in support of every word he spoke, but did not. Instead, he focuses his argument on getting across the meaning of the words that his opponent can only grasp in a very literal sense. In other words, he is engaged in discussion, while his opponent is interested only in emerging victorious from the debate - and that exemplifies the reason why I prefer discussion over debating.
I think that the confrontation of divergent ideas can be a very constructive thing, provided both sides are open to learn and change their mind.
Everybody has something to teach and to learn, always.
I have to admit that I didn't read your whole article because I don't have the time right now but I'm very sure you will be interested in this one: https://steemit.com/yunk/@mkt/what-dialogue-really-is-and-how-we-can-achieve-collective-meaningful-thinking
It's more than 7 days old so I am not begging for upvotes... It's about the concept of dialogue vs. discussion and debate.
An interesting article. Too bad I missed it. I would have upvoted it.
Hopefully I'm not quoting just for the sake of quoting, but I think this story shared by Seth Godin shows how extremely difficult is changing someone's worldview.
https://vimeo.com/105773034
The story talks about convincing people to do business with you, but translates perfectly to the world of politics, religion, and race.
Most interactions we have easily fall into debates instead of discussions, but still, even discussions are not enough to change someone's worldview. We remain sentient beings who absorb information through feelings. I believe that we still need to "feel it to understand it", and that can only be achieved in real-life experiences not just around a coffee table.
Great thoughts @ajdohmen, you're on a roll!
That's a great video. It does show that approach and mindset need to be changed when something is not working. Believe it or not, there are people who actually have incredibly open minds, and who don't go into defensive mode when their perspectives are challenged, or when they see themselves in what someone is talking about. They are such a joy to talk with. Working together is easy and, as they say, two brains are better than one. Too bad it is such a rare quality.
The debate in the video I included is important because of the illustration it provides (scripture is sort of a passion of mine, so I know who is actually better grounded in their understanding of it). I don't know how familiar you are with biblical history, but I found it ironical that Wilber defaulted to precisely the same methodology as the pharisees and scribes of biblical times. His only interest was in proving superiority, while Yu is pleading with him to change his perspective out of concern for Wilber's spiritual welfare. A rather remarkable interaction.
Much room for thought! I have never thought about discussion vs debate this way before. Yet it's, plain, and makes sense.
Thanks. There is a lot to think about, but my brain is too tired to do it these days....
Well, I enjoy the ideal of communicating to connect vs disprove
Same here.
I dislike this particular set of definitions, personally. A debate should be defined as a discussion involving a topic that the people speaking disagree on. What you describe that has a clear focus on winning as opposed to being correct is known as formal debate. I agree with your criticism in that sense. The only way to actually win from a debate is to be enlightened. Can't do much of that if you go in already being correct.
I think the OP is illustrating the lack of charity now prevalent in our society. Many of the modern so-called debates are mere technical exercise in exposing logical fallacies, rather than exploration of an assumption or a hypothesis to its logical application. Because our language has been hijacked by those who are driven solely by the conviction of their ignorance, I think reframing the word-choices is a viable tactic in the OP's attempt to elucidate his conclusion.
I get the attempt, but it sends the wrong message. Debate is what we need, not an apprehension to it. Formal debate needs reform, for sure, in exactly the ways that he criticizes. But newspeak wordplay changing of the definition of debate doesn't help that cause. It's like changing history for a good cause. It's still a bad idea. Besides, wordplay to make a point is the very sort of problem that he's speaking against.
I see. Then maybe we need to coin an adjective to describe the newspeak "debate" term: I know! "newspeak debate" to describe the modern "debate" format and use debate to describe what we will be doing.
Or we could just criticise the practice of "formal debate" that turns truth seeking into political sports.
What can be "won" from a debate?
Enlightenment. The ability to see reality in a new light that you've never considered before.