Being Disrespectful When Debating
Offline When I argue with people face to face, I have a temper. If they show any sign of meanness, I immediately go on the defensive. And how dare they try to make me out to be the bad guy! Eventually, the once peaceful, intelligent debate has become a volley of personal digs and loud voices, possibly supported with intelligent ideas that are inevitably ignored because of my rising blood pressure.
The same thing can occur on the internet, but I at least have a few minutes to decide if I really want to "Submit."
Regardless of what I naturally do, I think there is a good way to debate, and I'm wondering what you guys think.
I think respect is an absolute requirement. Whenever a person feels personally offended, it's bound to get hairy. And I realize that's not always possible - that's cool. I say what needs to be said, but I (try) to do so with as much sincerity and respect as possible. If people start getting angry, then we're just arguing to be right, not to gain understanding.
That's another point. Do you think you argue to be right or to gain understanding? I feel I argue to be right sometimes, but I do want to understand more. For example, if you're an atheist, are you really going to listen to what a religious fundamentalist has to say, or will you wait until they shut up so you can say what you've been waiting to say?
These issues seem to be especially prevalent in debates about god, politics, and other social issues, but let's not put any boundaries up here. I will fight to the death for Jason Mraz. xD
Lastly, why do you think we get angry? I've started trying to examine myself when I get angry, and I often find I'm angry because I'm insecure about my position and the other person just exposed the insecurity. Either that or I'm just being impatient which is a sign of my age (20). I've never been known to be patient...
So to recap: Do you think respect is required to debate productively? Do you show respect, or is there something that takes precedence? Do you argue to be right, to gain understanding, or something else? And if you get angry or upset in an argument, why do you think that is?
- Login to post comments
I hate the word "respect".
No one, not you, not me, not the pope, not any human, deserves respect.
What people can earn from me, if they want their claims taken seriously, is to have the ability to demonstrate the credibility of their claim. But a claim doesn't deserve respect by itself just because I may agree with a person's right to make a claim.
There is a difference between a person, and the claims that come out of their mouth.
If I said, "The New York Yankees won the Super Bowl last year"
Does that claim deserve blind acceptance?
Blasphemy and ridicule have their place. I would suggest to you, don't project your comfort level on others. Some people are not into the boxing ring, but that does not make the boxing ring bad. It just means you like the library.
Ir is not a matter of "respect" it is a matter of personal comfort in a debate situation.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions" Thomas Jefferson
"The first person to hurl an insult instead of a stone, started civilization" Freud
The point is to worry more about the credibility of what one claims, and stop worrying about the delivery.
If I said, "The New York Yankees won the Super Bowl last year", only a fool would blindly accept that.
If you responded "Bullshit" would that harsh blunt response make it any less a correct response?
Sometimes when we respond to theists we cant simply stick to always Barny dialogue as if we were in the first grade. Some people still don't get it no matter how polite we are.
It is not either or, it is COMFORT level. I hate the word "respect", it is a childish demand for a taboo, when what will work is proving the claims one makes.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
The only time I get angry is when someone starts calling me names just to piss me off. Which works as I do get pissed, but it also ends the discussion as I just walk away. I don't have time or patience to deal with jerks.
And, I only debate when I know I am right. I mean - I have facts, figures, data. If I don't know, or it is a matter of differing opinions, why debate? I may participate in the discussion, but then I don't see that as being debating. And I see no reason to get angry then, either - unless someone starts being a jerk.
I have debated with friends over touchy subjects, but then, I thought my opinions were important and my friend needed to think about some issues they had overlooked. Generally, I don't debate with friends.
I don't debate to gain understanding. Understanding comes from discussion, study and contemplation, not from debate or argument. I think of a discussion as an exchange of ideas without winners or losers. A debate is all about keeping score.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
A friend of mine is a very enthusiastic debater. He has a little sister. When he debates, he gets very serious and starts raising his voice a little. He calls it a debate attitude, whereas she thinks he's getting angry.
Whether I want to be right? I often do want to be, because I very often am, when I have had the time to think about it. It might sound arrogant, but it's rather true. When I discuss things about the Bible with people, I usually show them things they didn't know.
I have wondered, too, though, how I can convince somebody else that I am right. For example. Last week I showed somebody the real ten commandments (which are just silly). But he said "Well, here it says that these are the ten commandments of a covenant, not the real ten commandments". He also allowed himself to interpret the term the ten commandments to reference to the likeable ones, without any reason to allow him to do that.
Well I don't agree that people don't deserve respect. To me, respect is allowing people to have their own opinions without ridicule. Showing ridicule is not useful in that it incites unnecessary emotional reaction. You can be clear about what you mean without tearing the person down. And, according to a post below, you said "but is way past time in this country for the worker to demand the respect they deserve." Do you think respect is necessary for certain situations, then?
I agree that there is a difference between a person and the claims that come out of their mouth. That doesn't mean, to me anyway, that ridicule is justified. Just based on experience, people don't separate themselves from their claims too often. It still incites anger, and so to have a productive debate, I think it's practical to be respectful.
Also, we're not talking about blind acceptance. Respect doesn't imply acceptance of the claim.
And I am not and have not projected my comfort level on others. If anything, I just gave an opinion. I understand people have different ways of presenting themselves. I'm simply stating what I think is a good way to debate, and, even if I disagree with being mean, there's nothing I can do to change that. That's completely fine.
If someone responded "bullshit" to a bullshit claim, no, that wouldn't be incorrect. But it would signal aggression and the other person might, depending on the context, shut down. I don't think that's productive. And so I don't think that the delivery should be disregarded. Sometimes it can't be helped, but how we say things is half the battle. Whether we like it or not, people respond to tone, body language, word choice, and the environment around them. Those things are just as much a part of the debate as the information is when you're dealing with such emotional and perceptive beings as humans.
I see. I don't like the idea of keeping score, but I do think you have a point. A debate seems to have a different feel to it than a discussion, though sometimes a discussion seems like a debate sometimes. It seems like a blurry line to me.
I like your attitude toward when you debate, though. I always jump the gun and just start arguing, regardless of the person and whether or not I have a good amount of information... You seem to have a better handle on it than I do!
I wish I had your confidence!
With some people, like the person you talked about the 10 commandments with, they also think they're right. When you get two people who think that they're right very often, not much gets done, I wouldn't think.
I always try to keep an open mind, but honestly, I've gotten to the point where I feel like I understand these people's positions better than they understand it themselves. So, in principle, I debate to see if they will at least try to understand me; this is what I do on the forum. I don't argue to be right anymore; 'winning' an argument doesn't make you right.
But, face to face, this doesn't always happen...
It's just how we are. We have irrational emotions.
I don't have issues with being insecure anymore, but I can still become impatient when talking about things face to face, which is not good.
I don't think you have to respect them, and you certainly don't have to respect their beliefs. But, I think one should always try to stay calm. If I'm angry, it should at least be a controlled anger.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Also, I have a hard time deciding when it's a matter of differing opinions. I mean, people can say "I have the opinion that God exists" or "I have the opinion that black people are inferior." Does that mean that there's no reason to debate? Would it be different if they claimed that "God does exist" or "black people are inferior" without saying that they're just opinions? It seems to me that it wouldn't be. Many people just say something "is" something with the implication that it's an opinion. Or maybe not. Maybe they think it's a fact, and other people say it's just an opinion.
I get confused with the difference between opinions and facts. = /
Here's what I think is happening here, logically and psychologically, in very colloquial terms. In my opinion,
this is a way for ignorant people who are insecure about their beliefs to weasel out of providing any evidentiary support for them, not entirely consciously. Opinions and facts are not mutually exclusive. An opinion is a judgment, a belief about something, and it can be correct, conforming to facts. Or, opinions can be wrong. So, to say, "I have the opinion that God exists." is to say that 'I believe that God exists,' which is to implicitly make the claim that he exists, unless I can hold that I simultaneously believe that he exists while not being convinced that he does.
People do this because it comes with the attached implied euphemization of, "...but I don't have any evidence/truth is relative/I'm scared of having my beliefs challenged/etc., so don't argue with me. It is a way of mentally compartmentalizing their need to hold this belief and the reality that they have no good reason to hold this belief as well as keeping other people from criticizing what they believe. They use semantics, saying 'Well, it's only an opinion. I'm not bothering anyone, so it's okay if I don't try to defend it.'
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I'm 60 - really. I've had a lot of practice. And in formal debates, it is all about the score.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
I pretty much agree with Butter. With a slight addition - facts are quantifiable, measurable. We can even measure emotions by measuring brain waves (fMRI) and hormone levels. So emotions are real and can come under the classification of facts. People get emotionally attached to their opinions. We all do. The trick is to not let that attachment blind you to the facts. And if necessary. change your opinion. This is difficult for everyone.
Reminding myself of this, helps me keep my temper. And oh yes, I have a temper.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Very interesting. So if I understand you, people are making factual claims disguised as opinions because they don't want their beliefs challenged/the other reasons you gave?
I wonder how many times I've done that!
Thanks for the insight - that's a good point.
So maybe the way to go is to make sure you can back your stuff up well?
Good advice! That's comforting to hear - that it's more a shared difficulty to deal with being attached to opinions. I sometimes feel I'm just too ignorant to do it and that it's just a personal flaw that no one else has.
And about the keeping score about debating, I'll see how I view it as I get more practice.
If you haven't seen it before --
Mistakes were made (but not by me) by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_32?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=mistakes+were+made+but+not+by+me&x=0&y=0&...
Also on Kindle and it was at my library so you don't have to spend any money at all to read it. A very good book by two psychologists all about self justification.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
I think the other guy/gal should (expect to) get as good as they give. No exceptions, and nothing more than that. Train your tongue to cut through diamonds if things take a turn for the worse, although if you're 20 and blood pressure really does skyrocket like you seem to be suggesting, maybe you should consider buying a punching bag instead of working up a sharp tongue.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Hah! Very good suggestion. That's not a bad idea....
Although a treadmill or a bicycle would be even better - you need to exercise the big leg muscles if you want to maximize the basic health benefits of exercise....
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
It's similar to professing faith, in a way. People say that they have an opinion, yet they're not asserting this opinion to be true. It's like they're admitting that they have no justification for their beliefs; they're just believing because they want to believe.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
A bike would definitely be a plus... treadmills? Do you seriously know how many treadmills are posted back up for sale by owner after being bought?
No, there's only one area where the treadmill would shine - on TV. Well, anyways...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Frankly, I don't understand how some of you have the patience for these ignorant jizzbuckets...
Item #1
Recently I was engaged in a discussion with a Fundamentalist Christian about misogyny, and equality in mariages... He went on to tell me that in Chistian marriages, Men and Women *are* equal.... its just that Men are the Head of the household, and women have to abide by their word... I calmly explained what equality meant, and that what he was describing, wasn't it. He fell back on the "it is written in the Bible" bullshit, to which I responded that I hoped his daughter wound up giving head in the Holland Tunnel...
Item #2
A Cro-magnon browed dullard of considerable size heard that I was an atheist, and was obviously put off... he passed a few remarks, which i ignored... later I bashed my finger by accident, and shouted something along the lines of "Jesus fucking chist!... Fuck!"... To which he became very hostile and adament about me never taking his Lords name in Vain... He probably isn't used to people not backing down from him because he is a mouth breathing goliath... So I responded, "Fuck you and your non existant jesus... and while your at it Mary was an ass whore" ... and No... He didn't do anything...
Sorry folks, I can't be nice in the face of vaulting ignorance and unbridled bigotry... and yes, I am an asshole.
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
[When I argue with people face to face, I have a temper .. 'personal digs' and loud voices, possibly supported with intelligent ideas that are inevitably ignored because of my rising blood pressure.]
I was on a board populated solely by Christians and their was not a moment I was angry with them (I actually mean it). I was losing my cool ALL THE TIME, while at that board. And Not for the reasons you might think. It had to with the trollish behaviour and clicks that existed there. I like a stratagem that might help. Why not thinking of walking-away for a couple of hours before you start responding. This is a relatively small board so you are going to have to wait anyway. If you are at a advocacy board you will have many experiences that could easily make you Mad. So, the next time you are taking on somebody give it a try . . .
Forums can make ANYONE mad. If you are at a advocacy board you will have many experiences that could easily make you Mad. One of my favorite is being "attacked" for not being unholier than thou. Last yr I was on a board populated solely by Christians and looking back there was not moment I wasn't angry with them. I was losing my cool ALL THE TIME, I am pretty sure,. That does not reflect any of my interactions while here. I like a stratagem that might help with your problem. Why not think of walking-away for a couple of hours before you start responding. Do not make a federal case out of it. Getting alot of distance is key. This is a relatively small board so you are going to have to wait anyway. So, the next time you are "Mad" do give it a try IT COULD BE THE ANSWER . . .
While the thought of you bashing your finger is quite amusing, that incident can hardly be considered a debate. If the big guy punched you out, I would have given him props for standing up for himself, jesus and mary aside.
I'm also an asshole, but I prefer to be more subtle, the loud and obnoxious type I find annoying.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
I have a lot of opinions and so does everyone else. There are far fewer facts besides this fact ..
I consider a fact to be something everyone will agree on due to evidence or circumstance. It may be a fact that I like the color orange but the only evidence you have is that I say so, so I would likely make that an opinion even though for myself it could be a fact therefore in my opinion orange is the best color.
A lot of this is just psychological whilst debating especially when you are actually trying to make the other side consider. For example in my opinion jc may have never existed but if I state that as a fact as I may think it is it will likely cause dissent with the theist I am debating.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Whose more loud and obnoxious than Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell(well, was). These people and their fans want a theocracy at worst and a back of the bus attitude for non-Christians at best. You cant always be polite to theists nor do they deserve it all the time.
Time place and context determine an approach but there are no absolutes. You don't use a baseball bat in a library and you don't use a bookmark in a boxing ring.
Again, it boils down to comfort level and context of situation.
There are no blanket solutions as to how to debunk theism. I think you need both the Martin Luther Kings and Malcolm X in an approach.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Well... He could have taken his best shot.... but like most bullies, he was a pussy.
www.RichWoodsBlog.com