When at university in Australia, I studied Business with parts of the course requiring negotiation and debating. Unfortunately, they didn't go into the actual skill sets required in much depth so we had to rely on what we carried with us or developed along the way.
One particularly memorable debate was about illegal immigrants coming into the country, a hot topic at the time and probably more so now. I was teamed with a good friend of mine, a financially minded, quick-tongued guy and we faced-off against a team of four.
We had the very unpopular side of the debate, defending the illegal immigrants. What made it memorable was that we not only won, we made two of the four cry.
The story from university actually does not have a lot to do with this post but it is one case where I was part of a 'formal' debate.
Many of us have taken part in debates before and I am by far not the greatest of them. This post however is not about debating or negotiating skills it is about the debate itself.
Many topics are debatable as they are close to evenly placed. A popular example is 'should abortion be legal'. This topic is debatable as there is solid information available on either side of the argument. What I mean by solid information is that there are laws that say 'no murder' but there are also laws that indicate when a fetus is classed as alive.
What is actually getting debated isn't the abortion per se, but the classification of the fetus. That is something that is very debatable and should be continually investigated until a definitive answer is found.
This is what debate should be essentially used for, to discuss the pros and cons of taking certain positions. It is less a competition with victor and more a public investigation into a topic that has not yet been clearly defined.
However, a good debate can be turned into a poor debate very quickly once something like God gets brought into the equation as proof or defense. The reason it is a poor debate strategy is because there is no possible way to actually debate against it. Not because it is necessarily correct, it is just non-debatable through its lack of definition.
Imagine if every time an argument reached a head, the 'thoughts of unicorns' were brought in as evidence to support a claim. How can one argue against the 'unicorn defense'?
It couldn't be used in court except to perhaps get out of the death penalty as 'The Unicorns made me do it' would likely get the person committed as mentally unstable. Unfortunately, until there is not only definitive evidence that unicorns exist and they can transfer their thoughts, this will not hold up. Much to my dismay, belief in unicorns is not an adequate defense.
It is not that beliefs can't enter into the debate but it cannot be the only evidence and should definitely not be used to convince law-makers to adjust binding rules or legal reservations based on belief.
Imagine if your city spent 50 million dollars building unicorn crossings over highways after being successfully petitioned by the 'Society for the road safety of Unicorns'. However, debating building crossings for wildlife that do definitively exist is worth the time and effort and potentially, the investment.
My point of this article is not so much even about the debate strategy, it is for the debate's audience and judges as it is they who will choose how the debate is rated. Often, the undebatable component strategies that are used often create strong emotional reactions in the audience, as intended by the debating sides.
We see this a lot in political debates where participants bring in irrelevant or unprovable information to swing voters or cast doubt on their opponents. Unfortunately, more often than not it works, as the audience is generally not well-versed in identifying such information and it is often presented in a way that it seems definitive.
Again, I am no expert in this area but I am trying to make myself more aware of these kinds of logical fallacies as they are becoming more and more prevalent and influencing ever more heavily on our lives in very diverse areas from immigration policy, environmental laws, security and privacy issues as well as identity politics and blasphemy laws.
These things are very broad and deep topics and has experts that spend lifetimes thinking about them. To get a suitable understanding takes significant investment which they all know, not many will do across all subjects. This means that they can get majority support by convincing the non-experts and the best way to do that is target emotions, especially fear.
None of these areas are my wheelhouse and I definitely do not have the time or interest to invest across all areas but they will all impact directly upon me. That is why I have to develop the skills to at least spot the poor arguments brought to the table as that could at least identify who hasn't thought deeply enough or who is trying to deceive me.
Going back to the debate that started the article. The reason they cried is that they felt they had an unassailable position, did not prepare well and used hearsay as proof. My friend and I came in with up to date statistics and used them to shift the emotions of the audience. It is hard to argue when the way you feel is proven the correct position.
Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]
If you found this useful, interesting or valuable, please share it along for others.
The purpose of debate would be to formulate a sensible policy to govern a society; as such, any meaningful debate would be exchanges between governing members of a society. In a representative government, usually referred to as "democracy," the theoretical governing interests are the entirety of the populace, which complicates discussion of any issue. Within a smaller set of governing body, similar ideas and beliefs are generally shared amongst the members. In the general population, there is very little that is shared. Thus, morality and values do hinder discussion, as you outlined in your post.
Policy decisions, however, can not be solely based upon statistics and facts, since the impact of the policy must seem fair to those it applies. Without moral considerations, the policy can be rejected as being amoral by those who disagree, and it may be their moral duty to oppose amoral policies. The issue of fetal personhood that you invoke in the post can not be resolved without consideration of moral beliefs of the debaters. Even with our scientific advancement, science has not given answer to the fundamental question regarding origin of consciousness or life. By what measure do we determine a person to be a person? Is it intellect, consciousness, or genetic make-up? There was a time when entire segments of humanity was deemed to be less than a person based on scientific data of IQ. Although morality can be a hinderance in practicality, it is nonetheless, an important consideration.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Not at one point in the article did I mention removing morality as a debating consideration.
Questions of morality are very debatable the problem is when people bind morality to the thoughts of a unicorn. The views of a unicorn should have no place in the position of morality. Even though someone's moral stance can be built upon the supposed unicorn view, that source is not able to be entered as supporting evidence.
Questions of morality must be discussed from an earthly view. Otherwise the debate can never proceed for amorality can be used as a defense at every turn and there is no defebse against the claim.
Unfortunately for you, the unicorns say you are wrong...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
"Questions of morality must be discussed from an earthly view." The assumptions inherent in your statement are that 1) there are objective moral principles and 2) that the reason alone can arrive at the objective moral truth. The modern Western mind seems to readily accept that fundamental moral principles are somehow universally shared among humanity. Objective observation of the human condition and history will argue against such assumption. Morality is deductive process like mathematics; certain fundamental principles and values need to be assumed, not reasoned, prior to discussing moral problems. The fundamental assumptions are either religious, cultural, or opinion. Without invoking unicorns, God, flying spaghetti monsters, moral discussion is nothing more than two apes screeching at each other, since neither side has any more legitimacy than the other. Common religious or cultural consensus on fundamental principles is a priori necessity in any discussion regarding moral problems.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
My assumption is that morality is a practical issue subjective to the person. A moral stance need not have consensus of any kind with any one other than the self. It need not be taught but it will be learned as experience and belief in the meaning of that experience will form view points that will influence action. No one else need agree.
And this is the issue. Once unicorns come into play, there is no consensus as even though people may think they agree with another, there is never a perfect fit and under detailed investigation, consensus will be lost. It is like taking the Christian view of morality? Which Christian view? Which group, (one of) the books, the individuals interpretation, how the group on average behaves or how an individual within the group behaves?
This is why moral views can be introduced but cannot be used to create a rule, for (likely) no rule can cover all possible standpoints.
My point is that in a debate, introducing information like 'unicorn thoughts' means that the debate digresses into nonsense as it is a position that cannot be questioned. Much like the word from one of the many Gods.
Btw, I am glad that you have taken the time on one of my posts. Few do.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Your foundational principle is that there is no objective moral truth. If all morality is subjective, then it is just opinion. I can understand that perspective. Then morality is not an issue regarding controversial issues, only pragmatic considerations of enforceability, burden to the state, and potential social unrest. There is a case to be made regarding social and political policies to be strictly pragmatic in consideration. Usually, the stability of the State becomes the overriding concern in such policy decisions.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Perhaps an issue arises too commonly where the view of the state or majority enforces adherence to a moral stance to be a member of the group and punishment for non-performance. I would suggest that there probably are 'rules' of moral uniformity that all humans could agree to but I think it would only be possible for each individual to discover in themselves.
Forcing behaviours, even those deemed good, I see as quite a violent act and will always be met by different forms of resistance.
You seem to be quite interested in this topic and have probably spent a lot of time both learning and thinking it through. It is nice to be a part of as you are also willing to listen and reconsider, even if the consideration does not lead to a change. I tink this is becoming rare in the echo chambered and confirmation biased world in which we live.
Thanks again.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit