What motivates you to debate others?

[Leigha]

The Presidential debates have me thinking about debating, in general. There are some people who seem to be better debaters than others. I've been wondering what makes people desire to debate, though? Is there an inherent need in all of us to wish to prove points to others, so they accept us? Or find us intelligent? Or do we debate others in hopes that they will learn something positive from us?

Personally, I find that debating can be a great way to learn new things and help others to learn from me, but only if there is a mutually respectful dialogue going on. I tend to shy away from debating people if I get the sense that they are only in the debate for their own egos, and not at all interested in respecting any of my beliefs or views. I'm of the belief that there's always at least ONE thing that I may glean from interacting with someone who doesn't think like me on different issues.

So, do you enjoy debating? Do you think like me, in that you only debate people who respect your views? (This doesn't mean that they need to agree with your views, but it means that they are willing to hear your views, and ''agree to disagree'' if they don't follow your way of thinking.)

[Syne]

I debate to be challenged and sharpen my own thinking. People who respect your views are not likely to challenge you enough to test those views. No one can play devil's advocate to the their own views better than someone opposed to those views. I don't feel any need for respect from effectively anonymous strangers, and quite frankly, find it somewhat pathetic that anyone does.

"Agree to disagree" is either an oxymoron, an outright lie, and/or a thought terminating cliche to quell cognitive dissonance. None of these convey respect, except maybe as a superficial pleasantry to beg off.

[Leigha]

That is true about someone else playing 'devil's advocate.' Offline, I don't like conflict, maybe 'like' is the wrong word for no one  likes  conflict. But, only in conflict, can we really grow past our comfort zone. There can be conflicts online too of course, but I can just shut off the computer, or my phone - and just like that ... the conflict is gone lol But, not so much when offline. I think you have given me food for thought that having people disagree with me is not a negative thing. I wonder why I interpret ''debate'' as ''conflict.'' 

Well, sometimes ''agreeing to disagree'' is necessary in that there comes a point in some debates, when either side can't see the other's views, or simply don't want to. lol It is a polite way of saying ''this conversation's over.'' 

Do you ever avoid conflict offline? You seem like you aren't intimidated by conflict.

[Syne]

In person, debate can get much more heated than online, so I can sympathize with avoiding it offline and even interpreting it more as conflict. People asserting their opinions strongly does benefit, IMO, from the lack of tone in text.

I don't seek out conflict IRL, but I am a pretty assertive person...so it does happen. Like you say, no one (except the miserable who love company) really likes conflict.

[scheherazade]

I generally do not engage in debate although I do enjoy good discussion that can objectively hold opposing viewpoints simultaneously.

There is an entertainment forum on CBC Radio that is more my preference in debate.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/_oAAVyNjzCA

[Yazata]

The Presidential debates have me thinking about debating, in general.

Politics is all about divisiveness, it's all about hating other people, it's all about hypocrisy, it's all about moral posturing, it's all about destroying everything that I believe in and love. Politics is the rhetorical equivalent of having molten lead poured into my eyes. It's not something I'd choose voluntarily. So I try to avoid politics as much as possible. Given the politicization of all aspects of life, that's increasingly hard to do.

There are some people who seem to be better debaters than others. I've been wondering what makes people desire to debate, though? Is there an inherent need in all of us to wish to prove points to others, so they accept us? Or find us intelligent? Or do we debate others in hopes that they will learn something positive from us?

I don't think that politicians, generally speaking, really desire to debate. They feel compelled to do it by "journalists". They know that if they don't debate, they will be savaged in the media.

Personally, I find that debating can be a great way to learn new things and help others to learn from me, but only if there is a mutually respectful dialogue going on. I tend to shy away from debating people if I get the sense that they are only in the debate for their own egos, and not at all interested in respecting any of my beliefs or views. I'm of the belief that there's always at least ONE thing that I may glean from interacting with someone who doesn't think like me on different issues.

A basic principle of rhetoric is to try to make those inclined to favor your adversaries want to agree with you. (If people don't want to agree with you, they never will.) So it's important to acknowledge your opponent's concerns and speak to them. Show that your position doesn't really threaten the things that your opponent's supporters think are valuable. Show that your way is a better way of achieving compatible goals.

One of the big defects with debating is that too often it becomes a competitive zero-sum game. It becomes two diametrically opposed positions bashing away at each other in hopes of scoring points. It's all about energizing those who already agree with you, never about winning over those who don't. In that situation, any agreement with an opponent's point becomes a defeat. Ego becomes involved and participants will do anything to avoid feeling humiliated. So compromise becomes impossible, as does finding any common ground.

Debating in a real-time live format doesn't have much value. All people do is deliver canned talking points and prepared responses. It's very difficult to carefully consider what your opponent is saying and then deliver thoughtful responses, all in a few seconds with the bright lights and the cameras on you. If you hesitate or stutter, it will destroy you. So better to ignore what the other person says and just deliver your lines.

So, do you enjoy debating?

I enjoy debating certain subjects that I feel that I'm well grounded in. Subjects that aren't so emotional that they automatically set knees jerking and arouse people's sense of identity and alienation. (That rules out politics.)

I don't enjoy real-time debating on stage and much prefer a discussion board format, where people can make longer statements and actually explain why they are arguing as they are. I need to have time to think about the issues and to carefully craft my own replies. Here on the discussion boards, I often spend half an hour on a post. You can't do that on a debate stage.

[Secular Sanity]

I debate to be challenged and sharpen my own thinking. People who respect your views are not likely to challenge you enough to test those views. No one can play devil's advocate to the their own views better than someone opposed to those views. I don't feel any need for respect from effectively anonymous strangers, and quite frankly, find it somewhat pathetic that anyone does.

Same here.

---

Well, sometimes ''agreeing to disagree'' is necessary in that there comes a point in some debates, when either side can't see the other's views, or simply don't want to. lol It is a polite way of saying ''this conversation's over.'' 

Yep.

[C C]

So, do you enjoy debating? Do you think like me, in that you only debate people who respect your views? (This doesn't mean that they need to agree with your views, but it means that they are willing to hear your views, and ''agree to disagree'' if they don't follow your way of thinking.)

The context of literally competing with others for a substantive position (or job) would obviously be grounded differently than the somewhat recreational urges for "debate" encountered on the web. The latter may depend upon a variety of private, prescribed goals or be arbitrary impulses. Whereas the former might even require ideological commitment to a distinct community just to qualify as a contender, which would thereby neuter one's own capacity for being receptive to / exploring intellectual options "out loud".

In respect to only the internet or open forum entertainments... I feel there's a better possibility of constructiveness or outright innovation resulting when minus distracting insults and "get even" resources being competitively devoted to a warring or unbridled "game" mentality. I'll return to that after addressing two popular functions which wouldn't inspire me much (anymore) as underlying motives, due to disillusionment over them.

Public figures aren't exactly a walking advertisement as to how far one can go on the success ladder by abiding by a strict, classic canon of formal discussion. Violations of reason, etiquette, and the extensive exploitation of emotions, provincial ideas, and group beliefs / preconceptions are part of the very toolkit of a celebrated individual's particular rhetoric.

Thanks to some recent PBS fare dredging-up the historic relic, I'm reminded of Gore Vidal scoring his top (and one of few?) triumphs over William F Buckley Jr via a persistent ad hominem attack that finally provoked the latter to break his cool and launch a supposedly greater magnitude of incivility (for its time on censored TV, anyway, and what would be classed as hate-speech today).

So I don't much buy into that oft-declared opinion that debating online hones one's skill-set in that department, especially when what's occurring on political and science forums could seem as sloppy as what transpires with the celebrated, in the flesh encounters carried by traditional media. The exception, of course, is if "honing one's skill-set" does not actually reference improvement in the context of a universal standard, but is instead idiosyncratic development of a personal flavor in a more feral art of linguistic wrestling.

And on the flip side of "actually being passionate about what one is promoting / defending" (not mere practice), it's usually an exercise in futility to persuade another person to one's own view in the one-on-one encounters (like an evolutionist trying to convert a creationist, and vice versa). But performing for a nationwide audience that's listening / observing / reading for the sake of ironically "being informed" by, say, interactions between debating pundits, may have a percentage of success.

Thus for me, any "motivation" may revolve around the potential for stimulation or the possibility of "something interesting" emerging from a discussion which I didn't expect. A board devoted entirely to philosophy (and just having the luxury of uninterrupted free time back then) is probably the last place I ever engaged in a marathon discussion that lasted regularly over several weeks. In that respect a new conception (for both of us) gradually invented or clarified itself in the exchanges, which the other poster and I unanticipatedly both "walked away" with.

[Secular Sanity]

"Something interesting" or "a new perspective," that’s the carrot alright, but I don’t feel that persuasion is an exercise in futility.  I’ve been persuaded a time or two. That’s the stick.  It used to bother me but now I like it. 

The benefit of online discussion is that we can safely discuss the elephant in the room.  This enables me to find the right words and practice it in person. I think that PC stifles debate. I don’t think that we should ever ignore or shy away from deep moral convictions.  I think a better way towards mutual respect is to engage directly. 

Are there any topics that should be off limits?

[Leigha]

"Something interesting" or "a new perspective," that’s the carrot alright, but I don’t feel that persuasion is an exercise in futility.  I’ve been persuaded a time or two. That’s the stick.  It used to bother me but now I like it. 

The benefit of online discussion is that we can safely discuss the elephant in the room.  This enables me to find the right words and practice it in person. I think that PC stifles debate. I don’t think that we should ever ignore or shy away from deep moral convictions.  I think a better way towards mutual respect is to engage directly. 

Are there any topics that should be off limits?

Agree with you that most any conversation that we have with someone who holds an opposing view - we can glean something worthwhile from it. Even if we just learn something about ourselves. 

When it comes to online forums, the only thing that should be off limits, is allowing one or two ''bullies'' to take over every thread, causing all discussions to go sideways. It's just not fun to watch the same one or two people ''hog'' threads with insults, ad homs, etc...and this is all in the name of ''debate.'' I believe that discussions on moral convictions shouldn't be off limits, except if those moral convictions mirror hate speech, mock a particular group, or encourage prejudice. An example of this would be on the other forum recently, someone posted a thread that had to do with a very relevant topic right now, and the OP seemed to be mocking that group of people. I didn't participate in the thread, but it was swiftly moved to the ''cess pool.'' lol I read why, and while I'm not familiar with this poster who started the thread, it looked like nothing good was going to come from it. (Mainly because it seemed to denigrate a group of people even if that wasn't the OP's intent. Words are words.)

People might not like certain topics being ''off limits'' and members being banned but I've been on sites where bullies and trolls were left to run a muck, and it caused utter mayhem. It's not fun when a forum has no rules and everyone can say whatever without consequence. I don't like having to be too PC, but basic decency when debating goes a long way to keeping the debate focused on the actual topic, and not on posters trying to one up each other. (The Presidential debates come to mind.   )

My view has always been that if people have to resort to insults and name calling, their arguments are usually weak.

Just my views, anyway.

---

The Presidential debates have me thinking about debating, in general.

Politics is all about divisiveness, it's all about hating other people, it's all about hypocrisy, it's all about moral posturing, it's all about destroying everything that I believe in and love. Politics is the rhetorical equivalent of having molten lead poured into my eyes. It's not something I'd choose voluntarily. So I try to avoid politics as much as possible. Given the politicization of all aspects of life, that's increasingly hard to do.

There are some people who seem to be better debaters than others. I've been wondering what makes people desire to debate, though? Is there an inherent need in all of us to wish to prove points to others, so they accept us? Or find us intelligent? Or do we debate others in hopes that they will learn something positive from us?

I don't think that politicians, generally speaking, really desire to debate. They feel compelled to do it by "journalists". They know that if they don't debate, they will be savaged in the media.  

Personally, I find that debating can be a great way to learn new things and help others to learn from me, but only if there is a mutually respectful dialogue going on. I tend to shy away from debating people if I get the sense that they are only in the debate for their own egos, and not at all interested in respecting any of my beliefs or views. I'm of the belief that there's always at least ONE thing that I may glean from interacting with someone who doesn't think like me on different issues.

A basic principle of rhetoric is to try to make those inclined to favor your adversaries want to agree with you. (If people don't want to agree with you, they never will.) So it's important to acknowledge your opponent's concerns and speak to them. Show that your position doesn't really threaten the things that your opponent's supporters think are valuable. Show that your way is a better way of achieving compatible goals.  

One of the big defects with debating is that too often it becomes a competitive zero-sum game. It becomes two diametrically opposed positions bashing away at each other in hopes of scoring points. It's all about energizing those who already agree with you, never about winning over those who don't. In that situation, any agreement with an opponent's point becomes a defeat. Ego becomes involved and participants will do anything to avoid feeling humiliated. So compromise becomes impossible, as does finding any common ground.  

Debating in a real-time live format doesn't have much value. All people do is deliver canned talking points and prepared responses. It's very difficult to carefully consider what your opponent is saying and then deliver thoughtful responses, all in a few seconds with the bright lights and the cameras on you. If you hesitate or stutter, it will destroy you. So better to ignore what the other person says and just deliver your lines.

So, do you enjoy debating?

I enjoy debating certain subjects that I feel that I'm well grounded in. Subjects that aren't so emotional that they automatically set knees jerking and arouse people's sense of identity and alienation. (That rules out politics.)

I don't enjoy real-time debating on stage and much prefer a discussion board format, where people can make longer statements and actually explain why they are arguing as they are. I need to have time to think about the issues and to carefully craft my own replies. Here on the discussion boards, I often spend half an hour on a post. You can't do that on a debate stage.

You're ''good'' at debating, Yazata. Actually, you don't seem like you're debating at all, really. From what I've witnessed, you tend to foster healthy discussions, using facts to back up your assertions, and you're typically respectful to others in the discussion. You seem to genuinely want people to understand your view and you respect the person you're having the exchange with, even if you disagree with their views. 

In general, it appears that the best debaters are those who don't repel those he/she is debating. Once you start alienating your ''opposition'' then you have lost the debate, in my eyes.

---

In person, debate can get much more heated than online, so I can sympathize with avoiding it offline and even interpreting it more as conflict. People asserting their opinions strongly does benefit, IMO, from the lack of tone in text.

I don't seek out conflict IRL, but I am a pretty assertive person...so it does happen. Like you say, no one (except the miserable who love company) really likes conflict.

And, if we're honest - it might depend on who we're debating. In a work setting, I don't have problems dealing with conflict or debating view points with coworkers. But, if I have a conflict with a friend, it's as though I allow my personal connection with the person to affect my ability to view the conflict in an objective way, if that makes sense. So, even if a friend of mine has sound reasoning when coming to me to try to resolve the conflict, my tendency is to pretend like there is no conflict by ending the friendship. It depends on the conflict, I don't always do this lol