Jen's take:
Recently I started a fan page for myself on Facebook. (Ok, so it's a debate page, but as I'm a big fan of my debates and discussions and deep thoughts, I thought it appropriate.) Unfortunately, my reasoning was not just me being a big fan of myself. My debates and discussions get heated because people take things personally, so I decided to take a step back and make a separate page to avoid some of that heat.
I very clearly posted the rules for debating on the sidebar on my page (which seems to have conveniently disappeared, but I digress). I very clearly stated that name calling by anyone to anyone was not and never would be appropriate. It didn't take long before some poor soul decided my conservative views were bigoted, and called me a bigot. It brought me no sorrow to select the box next to her name that said "ban permanently."
But that got me thinking. What, exactly, IS a debate? My personal Facebook page, up until now, has been known as a place wherein deep discussions/debates take place on a daily basis. In the past, though, I have angered people by, in their words, "pressing" the issue after they have spoken their piece. This seems odd, to me. I always have thought the point of a debate was to win. As in, you say your side, I say my side, and someone presents the best evidence/statistics/facts/reasoning and wins. Is that not what a debate is? Perhaps I'm clueless in this regard. Enlighten me, if so.
In any case, here is how I debate and/or discuss, on my debate/discussion page:
I post a topic, link, or question that I find interesting. Some of these are suggested to me by my friends; some are based on conversations I've seen on other pages or message boards; some are just things that I think people will find controversial (although, admittedly, people seem to find controversy in areas I never thought possible). When the topic, link, or discussion is posted, it's open season on whatever it is. Have at it. Argue, fight, present your side, present your facts, do whatever it takes. But do NOT call me, or anyone else, a bigot, a hater, a racist, or any other host of names. That's not fair fighting. But know this: if you present your side, I will then continue presenting my side. That's how it *works*. That's what a debate or a discussion is. If I "press the issue", this does not make me "always having to be right" or any such thing. It's called a rebuttal. Look up the word, if you'd like.
I've also, often, been accused of "always thinking my opinion is the right one". Um, duh? Does anyone really espouse an opinion about something that they *don't* believe to be true? What would be the point of that? I'm asking, honestly. (I believe this was referred to as "outlandish bullshit" by one of my friends/readers, and "egocentrism" by someone else.) Though I CAN successfully argue "the other side" of something I feel strongly about, I don't unless I'm telling you. Repeat: I will flat out tell you if I'm arguing a side I don't agree with. Anything else…well, what you see is what you get. For shame! I am egocentric enough to actually believe that the opinions I hold are correct. Really, this flabbergasts me.
So, really, I have one rule for my debates/discussions: no. name. calling. It's very simple. Name calling is a pathetic way to argue. If you are frustrated with the person's argument, find another way to get your point across. Don't just assume their argument is judgemental, bigoted, ignorant, or full of hate.
Perhaps they just believe differently than you do. Last I checked, that was not a crime.
Paige's Take:
Debate or attack?
(Borrowed from the comments guidelines of PajamasMedia.com)
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
And, a brief definition (dictionary.com):
ad ho·mi·nem
–adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
I have been accused of not being willing to accept debate on topics. I have been charged with being hateful, fearful, and ignorant, a bigot, extremist and a list of other names. The difference between a bar fight and a debate is how the subjects are discussed (and the proper usage of the beer bottle as a weapon). What gets it all in a twist is that people don’t know or remember how to debate.
I did not take debate in High School or college; I was however in speech classes and had to give a few extemporaneous (spontaneous) speeches. I think I’m fairly good at debating topics (and have been told so by a few people, as well as my own opinion) and feel that when debating I attempt to be fair, avoid name-calling and stay on subject. However, that is not the case with most debates I have been involved in lately.
“Debate” is defined (Wikipedia) as a ‘formal method of interactive and representational argument’. As with most speaking styles, there are rules or guidelines that should be followed to avoid intimidation. Debate is not conversion, nor is it bullying the other person(s) into retreating or agreement. Debate is a way to present a factual and evidential argument for or against a specific subject.
Debate should be about two (or more) adults discussing a subject – not necessarily with the intent of converting the other – with opinions, evidence and facts. Emotions are not involved, nor appreciated. Name-calling (ad-hominem attacks) is in bad form and changes the debate into a contest (read: “pissing match”).
Debate is not bashing the other person with personal comments (or attacks), insulting them in order to change the subject or create hurt feelings. Opinion is an important aspect of a debate; again, the point is not to necessarily change the other person’s opinion. There is a fair exchange of ideas, information, facts, exhibits and evidence. Although the proof used may appear biased to the outlook of one debater; a good debate should include corroboration as well as challenges to the opinion of the others involved.
For instance, if we are debating that the most efficient cars on the road are the Toyota Prius; the persons that believe this to be true could offer up EPA statistics and other studies that have been done to prove the point. However, they could also present the facts that even though the cars are more fuel efficient, the cost to purchase new, keep repaired and (in some cases) charged might override the actual efficiency. It is also not a car to drag the soccer team in, or your trailer or boat behind. Some might find the negative attention disloyal to the cause; however in the search for unbiased opinion, the information would be ultimately correct in both instances.
On the other hand the owner of an older, paid-for SUV maintains the need for the vehicle because of lifestyle and employment. With adequate seating and cargo room, the vehicle is more appropriately suited for hauling loads of children, groceries, camping gear or vacation travel (not to mention towing a boat or a trailer). The day-to-day use of the vehicle requires that the tank be filled only once each month (instead of weekly), and maintenance is minimal if kept up. Receipts for fuel and maintenance, matched against the safety record of the vehicle (from the EPA or other institution), would satisfy the evidence portion of the question.
To argue the point that because one owner drives a “gas-guzzling SUV, they must care less about the environment and must therefore be a hateful and inconsiderate bigot” is merely mud-slinging and not addressing the point of the discussion; which is (might I remind you) efficiency.
Neither party is right or wrong in their beliefs that their vehicle is the safest and most efficient vehicle for their lifestyle. The Prius owner has a lifestyle that doesn’t demand a large amount of space; probably commutes to work at a distance and takes few camping trips or drives that require the room of a larger SUV. This does not make the Prius owner a better human being, or a more careful steward of the planet. It also doesn’t make the Suburban owner a “gun-toting, extremist militia member”.
Life isn’t Jr. High and not every battle needs to be fought to win. Sometimes there is more than one way to peel an orange; and they might just both be right. Quit with the useless personal attacks and get on to making a stand for your opinions. You don’t have to WIN to be correct.
No comments:
Post a Comment