What motivates you to debate others?

[Syne]

Most here might not be aware that the setting for debate differs wildly as viewed by the left and right leaning. In the culture, media, and secular dominated forums the right are awash in views that differ from their own. So we really don't have to look far to find a challenge to our views, and really have to work if we wanted to avoid them. OTOH, the left is awash in largely their own views, have more trouble finding devil's advocates, and no trouble avoiding them. In this respect I consider my own interest in debate to have the tertiary side-effect of supplying what may be rather scarce in some people's normal social/entertainment environment.

As a result, I, and others on the right, may seem more combative, but I think that's a natural consequence of having your view constantly challenged. If your own views had to withstand a continual assault from most cultural touchstones, you would have to be more assertive if you wished to express your views...since you are likely to face backlash.

Maybe this insight can help others understand what the tone, that might be read into posts, really means. We just exist in two different worlds. One where ideas have maximum competition, and another where cooperation of ideas is a virtue. This is why you will often see those on the left run to either others aid in debate, but not see this on the right anywhere near as much. While neither approach is "wrong", I just think that high competition is the most compatible with the scientific method.

[Leigha]

That's a good point, Syne. Conservatives aren't popular these days. I'm not right or left leaning, but where I think conservatives go wrong in their debate ''style'' is they (often) debate from an angry place. Now, anger when channeled properly, can be an incredibly constructive tool, but only in as much as the person wielding that tool. (Trump has done an awful job of channeling his anger over what he perceives as the most ''important'' issues of the land, for example.)

As an alternative example - Martin Luther King Jr did a masterful job of channeling his anger, and used his anger to bring about positive change. And he had way more to be angry about than Trump. 

I've always admired debaters who persuade me to ponder and change my mind, simply by getting me to consider something I never considered, before meeting them. One must know his/her audience, too. I don't do well with aggressive, pushy debating styles. No one likes a know-it-all.

[Syne]

Yeah MLK versus BLM is a good comparison of well-directed anger and poorly-directed anger. And Trump is a dumpster fire all around. But what you may feel as aggressive or pushy may sometimes be good for a healthy free market of ideas...where some views may be drowned out otherwise. For example, on a forum surrounded largely by people who share your views, you will inevitable get support from multiple people while only hearing dissent from a sparse few. That makes it easy to dismiss the few and fail to even consider the challenge...since most people are easily swayed by confirmation bias.

IOW, not all voices have the same volume, and dissenting voices are easy to blow off as "rubes" or whatever marginalizing term works.

Personally, I consider know-it-alls to be the very best devil's advocates, since they seem to be motivated to address every point of my thinking.

---

That's a good point, Syne. Conservatives aren't popular these days. I'm not right or left leaning,...

I'm curious. What right-leaning positions do you agree with?

Many on the left think of themselves as centrist, but when we tally their agreement with left and right-leaning positions, they often find themselves much more to the left than they thought.

[Leigha]

---

I'm curious. What right-leaning positions do you agree with?

Many on the left think of themselves as centrist, but when we tally their agreement with left and right-leaning positions, they often find themselves much more to the left than they thought.

The ''right-leaning'' positions that I agree with:

* I'm pro-life, in that I believe life begins at conception, but don't believe abortion should be banned. I just would like to see it be utilized less.

* I'm not ''pro-war'' but I'm ''for'' having a strong army.

* I believe that government involvement in our lives should be minimal, and believe that taking responsibility for our lives will help us to reach our goals, personally and collectively.

* I don't think that government healthcare can work for all - maybe some, but not all. 

* Lower taxes on corporations so jobs stop going overseas and more jobs can be ''created'' in the US.

The ''left-leaning'' positions that I agree with:

* I believe that we are partially responsible for global warming. ''We'' as in humans.
* I'm against the death penalty (always) - How can I be pro life, but only pro life of a baby?
* I believe in separation of church and state, and not intertwining religion into politics/government matters.
* I'm not against same sex marriages 

Neutral views of mine:

* United Nations involvement
* Gun control
* Capitalism/socialism - I'm not against capitalism, only the unbridled animal it's become.

[Secular Sanity]

No, I’m curious.  Were you offended by the "grab them by the pussy" remark, Syne?  Talk about needing validation.  What an insecure asshole.  Is that how he defines his self-worth?  What an idiot.

Sad thing is, though, plenty of women would allow him to do just that.

[Syne]

No, I’m curious.  Were you offended by the "grab them by the pussy" remark, Syne?  Talk about needing validation.  What an insecure asshole.  Is that how he defines his self-worth?  What an idiot.

Sad thing is, though, plenty of women would allow him to do just that.

I wasn't offended just because that's exactly the sort of thing I fully expected someone to eventually dig up. It's part and parcel with his personality. And I completely agree with you...he is very insecure. No secure person needs to tell you how rich and great they are.

[Syne]

Neutral views of mine:

* United Nations involvement
* Gun control
* Capitalism/socialism - I'm not against capitalism, only the unbridled animal it's become.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Are you neutral on these, or just consider them centrist views?

Neutral would be not caring what our level of UN involvement is, what gun control policies we do or do not have, and what economic system we have.

I'm not against capitalism, only the unbridled animal it's become.

Yeah, big difference between crony capitalism and free market capitalism.

[Leigha]

Neutral views of mine:

* United Nations involvement
* Gun control
* Capitalism/socialism - I'm not against capitalism, only the unbridled animal it's become.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Are you neutral on these, or just consider them centrist views?

Neutral would be not caring what our level of UN involvement is, what gun control policies we do or do not have, and what economic system we have.

I'm not against capitalism, only the unbridled animal it's become.

Yeah, big difference between crony capitalism and free market capitalism.

Neutral in terms of not feeling particularly strong ''for'' or ''against'' gun control, for example. I care about the issues but I don't subscribe to a right or left way of handling those issues, currently.

[Syne]

Neutral views of mine:

* United Nations involvement
* Gun control
* Capitalism/socialism - I'm not against capitalism, only the unbridled animal it's become.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Are you neutral on these, or just consider them centrist views?

Neutral would be not caring what our level of UN involvement is, what gun control policies we do or do not have, and what economic system we have.

I'm not against capitalism, only the unbridled animal it's become.

Yeah, big difference between crony capitalism and free market capitalism.

Neutral in terms of not feeling particularly strong ''for'' or ''against'' gun control, for example. I care about the issues but I don't subscribe to a right or left way of handling those issues, currently.

I'm not sure I understand what other options there may be. Could you explain some examples?

[Leigha]

Neutral views of mine:

* United Nations involvement
* Gun control
* Capitalism/socialism - I'm not against capitalism, only the unbridled animal it's become.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Are you neutral on these, or just consider them centrist views?

Neutral would be not caring what our level of UN involvement is, what gun control policies we do or do not have, and what economic system we have.

I'm not against capitalism, only the unbridled animal it's become.

Yeah, big difference between crony capitalism and free market capitalism.

Neutral in terms of not feeling particularly strong ''for'' or ''against'' gun control, for example. I care about the issues but I don't subscribe to a right or left way of handling those issues, currently.

I'm not sure I understand what other options there may be. Could you explain some examples?

Before I answer, do you believe that the liberal side and conservatives both support the second amendment? From what I've read about the liberal viewpoint on gun control, it seems that they are just seeking background checks, waiting periods before purchasing a gun, ban on assault rifles, and ban on concealed weapons. The only thing that I disagree with on the liberal side, is a banning on concealed weapons. Having said this, I don't own a gun. But, why is the conservative side ''known'' for ''supporting'' the 2nd Amendment? There seems to be an implication that liberals are not supportive of it at all, but really, it just sounds like they want to have some protective measures in place. How do you make sense of the two sides on this issue?