Some Thoughts on the Nature of Debate
Recently, I had an online encounter that followed a rather baffling, increasingly frequent pattern.
It normally begins with someone taking issue with a comment or a post I’ve made - in this case, it was a couple of weeks after I’d posted a comment on the minimum wage. I don’t usually take up old threads, but this was on a subject that interests me, and the comment he offered was a few paragraphs long, which implied that he’d put some thought into it. He also added a final paragraph asking me what the deal is with all those annoying questions I keep asking people.
So, presuming he wanted an answer to this, I responded, i.e., I argued my point. I also added a brief explanation about why I think asking questions in the course of a conversation is a good idea.
The other person argued back. With several paragraphs. I posted a response defending my points and answering the questions he’d asked me. He responded with more points and questions. I responded back, answering more questions, carefully addressing more of his points.
He threw up his hands, complained to the blog’s owner about how he can’t seem to “turn [me] off” and stopped talking.
Mind you, this was a conversation he initiated. I did not seize him by his collar as he innocently brushed past me on the Internet and demand to know his stance on the minimum wage. Nor did I pursue him across the frozen tundra to his blog and pound on his door, shouting through the barred and locked barrier that he must reply to my points forthwith.
No, I simply took the time to respond to his posts, as he responded to mine. And suddenly, it’s implied I’m some sort of online stalker who’s pestering him.
As I’ve said, this is a pattern. Going back over the threads I’ve participated in, both on rightwing and liberal websites, I notice that this complaint about getting responses to responses is typically made by the very people who initiate the conversation. There seems to be a large pool of Internet posters who consider the last word a God-given right.
That, or gangs of home invaders are holding innocent Americans at gun-point, frog-marching their victims to computers, and forcing them to respond to me.
Back in my Bible Belt days, I occasionally met evangelical Christians who approached argument in much the same way these folks do. Usually it was some sheltered soul who had heard about unbelievers in Sunday school, but rarely actually interacted with them. The person would initiate a conversation, frequently beginning with the question “are you saved?” and then, as the discussion went on, evince baffled dismay that the “unsaved” person did not stop arguing, fall to his or her knees, and convert like they do Jack Chick tracts.
The concept of defending a point they had made was alien to them. They had marched eagerly forward with what they considered unassailable arguments, and were outraged at the rudeness of people who refused to treat those arguments as unassailable. Sure, they expected a little resistance. But oh, the gross unfairness of someone listening, arguing and worse, asking them to expand on their points and clarify them! That was just intolerable! It was insulting! It was harassment, that’s what it was! By the end of the conversation, the evangelical had usually forgotten who had begun the discussion and was hurrying off to the comfort of fellow Born Agains with a tale of being the victim of an unprovoked verbal attack by an unbeliever.
I’m interested in ideas. If someone initiates a discussion on a subject that interests me, I will continue that conversation so long as I find it interesting.
There seem, however, to be quite a few people online who don’t like debate. They like the idea of debate, but they don’t really understand what intelligent debate entails - which is, listening, citing facts, and most important, asking questions, and answering questions.
Instead, they read a single book, like Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism or Coulter’s Treason or they pick up a few talking points at a college bull session, and they stride forward as those evangelicals did, just as positive that they are entering the field of battle well armed, and just as doomed to disappointment.
I’ve been doing this for a long time and I like debate. Naturally I prefer it be intelligent, and some of the best times I’ve had online have been arguments I’ve lost with well-read, logical, conservatives and Christians. I’m no saint, however. I’ll occasionally bat an idea around with someone who plainly hasn’t the foggiest idea what they’re doing. And I’ll have a dandy time. Chomping down hard on the bones of bad arguments helps to keep my teeth white and sharp.
But kiddies -- don’t complain about the fact that I do you the courtesy of responding to a conversation you initiate. It just makes you look silly.
Or, if you find yourself posting your responses to me at knife or gunpoint, let’s at least work out a code word you can use to alert me that all is not well. I suggest you gently work the word “eggplant” into the conversation. That way, I can keep you and your captors occupied online while I discreetly signal to my husband to call the police.
It normally begins with someone taking issue with a comment or a post I’ve made - in this case, it was a couple of weeks after I’d posted a comment on the minimum wage. I don’t usually take up old threads, but this was on a subject that interests me, and the comment he offered was a few paragraphs long, which implied that he’d put some thought into it. He also added a final paragraph asking me what the deal is with all those annoying questions I keep asking people.
So, presuming he wanted an answer to this, I responded, i.e., I argued my point. I also added a brief explanation about why I think asking questions in the course of a conversation is a good idea.
The other person argued back. With several paragraphs. I posted a response defending my points and answering the questions he’d asked me. He responded with more points and questions. I responded back, answering more questions, carefully addressing more of his points.
He threw up his hands, complained to the blog’s owner about how he can’t seem to “turn [me] off” and stopped talking.
Mind you, this was a conversation he initiated. I did not seize him by his collar as he innocently brushed past me on the Internet and demand to know his stance on the minimum wage. Nor did I pursue him across the frozen tundra to his blog and pound on his door, shouting through the barred and locked barrier that he must reply to my points forthwith.
No, I simply took the time to respond to his posts, as he responded to mine. And suddenly, it’s implied I’m some sort of online stalker who’s pestering him.
As I’ve said, this is a pattern. Going back over the threads I’ve participated in, both on rightwing and liberal websites, I notice that this complaint about getting responses to responses is typically made by the very people who initiate the conversation. There seems to be a large pool of Internet posters who consider the last word a God-given right.
That, or gangs of home invaders are holding innocent Americans at gun-point, frog-marching their victims to computers, and forcing them to respond to me.
Back in my Bible Belt days, I occasionally met evangelical Christians who approached argument in much the same way these folks do. Usually it was some sheltered soul who had heard about unbelievers in Sunday school, but rarely actually interacted with them. The person would initiate a conversation, frequently beginning with the question “are you saved?” and then, as the discussion went on, evince baffled dismay that the “unsaved” person did not stop arguing, fall to his or her knees, and convert like they do Jack Chick tracts.
The concept of defending a point they had made was alien to them. They had marched eagerly forward with what they considered unassailable arguments, and were outraged at the rudeness of people who refused to treat those arguments as unassailable. Sure, they expected a little resistance. But oh, the gross unfairness of someone listening, arguing and worse, asking them to expand on their points and clarify them! That was just intolerable! It was insulting! It was harassment, that’s what it was! By the end of the conversation, the evangelical had usually forgotten who had begun the discussion and was hurrying off to the comfort of fellow Born Agains with a tale of being the victim of an unprovoked verbal attack by an unbeliever.
I’m interested in ideas. If someone initiates a discussion on a subject that interests me, I will continue that conversation so long as I find it interesting.
There seem, however, to be quite a few people online who don’t like debate. They like the idea of debate, but they don’t really understand what intelligent debate entails - which is, listening, citing facts, and most important, asking questions, and answering questions.
Instead, they read a single book, like Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism or Coulter’s Treason or they pick up a few talking points at a college bull session, and they stride forward as those evangelicals did, just as positive that they are entering the field of battle well armed, and just as doomed to disappointment.
I’ve been doing this for a long time and I like debate. Naturally I prefer it be intelligent, and some of the best times I’ve had online have been arguments I’ve lost with well-read, logical, conservatives and Christians. I’m no saint, however. I’ll occasionally bat an idea around with someone who plainly hasn’t the foggiest idea what they’re doing. And I’ll have a dandy time. Chomping down hard on the bones of bad arguments helps to keep my teeth white and sharp.
But kiddies -- don’t complain about the fact that I do you the courtesy of responding to a conversation you initiate. It just makes you look silly.
Or, if you find yourself posting your responses to me at knife or gunpoint, let’s at least work out a code word you can use to alert me that all is not well. I suggest you gently work the word “eggplant” into the conversation. That way, I can keep you and your captors occupied online while I discreetly signal to my husband to call the police.