Debate
Debate is an intellectual exercise. Perhaps I should use the more formal term "dialectic", although I consider that they both hold the same implication of argumentative rigor. In debate there is an (all too often implicit) accord that, should the logic of one side or the other be shown to be shown to have produced a contradiction, they must either fundamentally and enduringly modify their position (to resolve the contradiction), introduce additional real evidence or logic to show that the perceived contradiction doesn't exist, or accept the validity of the opposing side (barring of course extant contradictions on the opposing side). The first point is too often forgotten, and is worth repeating: A "debate" implies that both sides are willing to support their respective positions by fact and logic, and that both are equally willing to modify or abandon their positions as necessary to prevent a contradiction. The last point is also often forgotten; attacking one broken idea from the ramparts of another hopelessly broken one is a nothing more than a shouting match refereed by decibels rather than logical consistency. In a true, productive debate one might see an initial grandiose claim (perhaps verging on hyperbole) beaten back to a more defensible (and presumably accurate) statement. The objector has indicated the existence of a contradiction, and the initial arguer has conceded an untenable position but reached a position that is presumably supported by the available facts. The synthesis is a middle ground, which may be an end in itself or simply an acceptable basis for further productive argumentation.
This unwillingness to adapt or abandon a position makes certain types of "debates" effectively impossible. In particular so called "religious debates" are almost always a misnomer. Rarely, if ever, is either side willing to abandon their position (their faith) and likewise rarely (if ever) is either participant deputized to alter, wholesale, the beliefs of an entire sect. A related problem occurs in debating across value systems (science versus religion is simply a single case of this). Telling the opposing side what they should value is a null argumentative tactic: scientists value hard, quantitative evidence; purveyors of religion hold faith and scripture as the court of final appeal; mothers (to stereotype) will be hostile to any any line of logic, no matter how well constructed, that threatens their children. It is meaningless to hold a "debate" on "Is pornography bad?" unless, at the outset, all parties could agree on a precise definition, including all the possible components, of "bad" (The same naturally goes for any number of other hot-button topics). Americans (historically) value their salary, while Europeans (historically) value their vacation and social programs. It would be legitimate and productive (if conceptually grandiose) to debate which produces a higher standard of living, but it would be meaningless to debate which is "better", since here the difference in value systems causes too large a gulf in the arguments . When sides are unwilling to agree on a common currency for evidence then true debate is impossible and we have returned to some variant of the shouting match (which is historically incapable of producing useful truth).
So, when entering a debate we have two critical checks that must be made; both sides must have a true willingness (and authority) to surrender their position, and both sides must agree on a standard of validity for evidence and argument (which further implies, if not a congruence of value systems, at least a common ground). This might be more simply rephrased as "There must exist a point or continuum of middle ground, consistent with both value systems, that both sides could conceivably move to." If you ever find yourself in a debate that doesn't meet this criterion, politely excuse yourself and go get some fresh air -- no one needs another shouting match.
This unwillingness to adapt or abandon a position makes certain types of "debates" effectively impossible. In particular so called "religious debates" are almost always a misnomer. Rarely, if ever, is either side willing to abandon their position (their faith) and likewise rarely (if ever) is either participant deputized to alter, wholesale, the beliefs of an entire sect. A related problem occurs in debating across value systems (science versus religion is simply a single case of this). Telling the opposing side what they should value is a null argumentative tactic: scientists value hard, quantitative evidence; purveyors of religion hold faith and scripture as the court of final appeal; mothers (to stereotype) will be hostile to any any line of logic, no matter how well constructed, that threatens their children. It is meaningless to hold a "debate" on "Is pornography bad?" unless, at the outset, all parties could agree on a precise definition, including all the possible components, of "bad" (The same naturally goes for any number of other hot-button topics). Americans (historically) value their salary, while Europeans (historically) value their vacation and social programs. It would be legitimate and productive (if conceptually grandiose) to debate which produces a higher standard of living, but it would be meaningless to debate which is "better", since here the difference in value systems causes too large a gulf in the arguments . When sides are unwilling to agree on a common currency for evidence then true debate is impossible and we have returned to some variant of the shouting match (which is historically incapable of producing useful truth).
So, when entering a debate we have two critical checks that must be made; both sides must have a true willingness (and authority) to surrender their position, and both sides must agree on a standard of validity for evidence and argument (which further implies, if not a congruence of value systems, at least a common ground). This might be more simply rephrased as "There must exist a point or continuum of middle ground, consistent with both value systems, that both sides could conceivably move to." If you ever find yourself in a debate that doesn't meet this criterion, politely excuse yourself and go get some fresh air -- no one needs another shouting match.