|
November 20, 2005
Debating beats persuading?
The last post reminded me of a topic which has long plagued me: what is the use of debating anything? This is not to say that there's anything intrinsically wrong with debating, because there isn't. Many people love to debate things, and one of the reasons is that they want to win. Litigators are usually excellent debaters. Possibly because of my discomfort with litigation at an unfortunate time in my life, I prefer the exchange of ideas to debating. My problem with debating is related to a reason I disliked litigation: in both litigation and debating, there is no particular correlation between winning and being right. One can "win" only because of the fact that one's opponent didn't get enough sleep. Or isn't as attractive, articulate, or intelligent. Or because the judge (or the audience) is biased or stupid. Nor are litigation or debating likely to ever persuade anyone of anything. I can't think of the last time I was persuaded by a debate, and this is all the more true when I have strongly held convictions about something. For example, nothing that a gun control advocate might say or do could ever persuade me of the correctness of gun control, or the wrongness of the Second Amendment. If the greatest debaters in history (say, Cicero or Clarence Darrow) were to rise from the dead and engage me in debate, they'd probably "win" the debate, but they'd never change my mind. And no matter what they said or how well they said it, it would never make them right. That's why I'll always prefer an open exchange of ideas to a debating contest. When the process is not contaminated by the messiness of wanting to win or lose, the exchange of ideas can lead people to a greater understanding of the other side's position, even though they disagree with it. The idea that war can be abolished strikes me as wildly silly and impossible. But I'd much rather hear someone's ideas of how this might in theory be made to happen than I would try to defeat that person's argument in order to score points. Defeating arguments (the best possible outcome in a debate) never defeats or changes minds. Whether God exists is an even sillier thing to debate, yet I cannot tell you how many times I've heard it debated. The idea that an atheist can be transformed into a believer or a believer into an atheist by this process strikes me as absurd. ("I've won the debate! Therefore, God does not exist!") By merely exchanging ideas without expecting to win, though, I think it is sometimes possible for each side to understand why an opponent thinks what he thinks. (Something not of much value in debating or in litigation, because the goal is winning, not explaining thought processes.) Of course, to reach such a point it is first necessary to do something which is very difficult and often clouded by the need to win debates. That is the honest acknowledgement that what one says is actually what one thinks, and not someone else's idea, opinion, platform, or position which is being regurgitated out of a belief that it is a "winning" argument. To give an example of this, I once represented a tenant in a rent control dispute. Even though I abhor rent control, I had to present my client as the wrongful victim of a landlord's illegal rent overcharge scheme. This was something I did not believe morally and did not agree with philosophically, but the law not only allowed it, it required me to take that position or else not take the case. In debating, people often take positions in order to win. If the goal is simply to win, that's fine. But winning isn't a form of persuading. I don't even think winning is persuasive. If it were, then all the Kerry voters would be for Bush.
Highly uncivilized. (Which is a good argument in favor of debate.) posted by Eric on 11.20.05 at 04:37 PM
Comments
I like fundamentalists. Anyway....! Some debates have been very interesting. The famous debates between G. K. Chesterton and George Bernard Shaw were very good. Of course, I side with Chesterton and oppose Shaw down the line, but both were very good at setting out their positions. I have some tapes in which Leonard Peikoff and John Ridpath debated socialists, and a tape in which Peikoff debated Phyllis Schlafly (conservative) and Phil Wexler (liberal). I was very pleasantly surprised when I saw Wexler clapping and agreeing with Peikoff on foreign policy. He said he was an "anti-totalitarian" liberal. My kind of liberal. But these debaters weren't like lawyers (sorry) just saying anything that would score points. They were saying what they honestly believed. As Chesterton once said, the man for whom any stick is good enough usually picks up a boomerang. I don't engage in debates. I just express my views and dogmas. If somebody is persuaded by something I say, that's good, but it's not something I count on. I certainly would not try to debate, e.g., a gun-grabber or a Holocaust denier or a 9/11-denier. Their value-premises are way too opposed to my own for there to be any meaningful communication. As I've said before, fundamental value-premises cannot be reasoned to, only reasoned from. Some people are extremely good at making their views attractive. The aforementioned G. K. Chesterton gives perhaps the most compelling case for Christianity in his Orthodoxy, The Everlasting Man, and other works. C. S. Lewis is also very good. I just finished reading a book on mythic themes and archetypes in Chesterton, Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Charles Williams. Now, I'm reading Taylor Caldwell's Dialogues with the Devil, a profound view of Christ, God and the Devil, Good and evil, Heaven and Hell. I find that Christian writers are usually the best writers, e.g., Milton, Dante, the Bible itself. And also a good preacher. I like the "fire-and-brimstone" style, and also preaching about the Blood of Christ. Christianity -- the historic Christianity of the West -- is extremely interesting. Ayn Rand's novels The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and her earlier fiction dramatize the most powerful case for her egoist and capitalist ideals. I agree with the noble E. Merrill Root that Howard Roark is "far closer to theism -- and to the rainbow mind of Christ -- than anything dreamt of by the National Council of Churches." The style of that! You can see that, while I cannot call myself a Christian, I am a Christophile. In other words, a good myth is a powerful persuader for me. Myths are eternal archetypes. Myths are stories which tell us something of the character of the Divine. Myth is the language in which the Gods speak to us. One very good book, Carl Cohen's Four Systems [Socialism, Individualism, Fascism, Communism], gives the best case for each of those four systems, the case as would be presented by its most eloquent spokesman. He even makes fascism and Communism look good. I'm constantly debating within myself between my various characters. Wanda is very seductive. Dawn and Norma have superlative mythic style and also extremely captivating. Mr. Bricker has the most logical Constitutional argument. Around and around it goes, where it stops nobody knows.... Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · November 21, 2005 12:58 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I think that debates of the kind you mention are meant to convince the audience. You won't get a fundamentalist to change his mind, but if you contract his b.s. with someone more sensible then the audience might leave with something to think about. Debates are a great way to challenge authority and generaly to show that the emperor has no clothes (show it to the people, not to him)
Re: persuasion... there's an element of persuasion in all we do. If we are asked to give reasons for everything we say and then reasons for that and so on, the chain of reasons must come to an end... it ends with unjustified/unjustifiable ideas/sentences. If I were to be asked if they are right, then I'd say that "yes", they are right, and if still pressed for answers I would say that I can't give reasons but that's want I learned, etc.
Wittgenstein made this point... that there are precise roles for the demanding and provoding justifications in our daily practices. This is one way in which philosophy goes bonkers, in expecting some pratices (such as asking for reasons) to always be meaningful, regardless of context.
To give Wittgenstein's example, if GE Moore would meet a prince who has been told that the world began with his birth, and who lived in a society in which that belief was central to their understanding of everything, Moore chould try to educate the prince on Mathematics, Physics, or even Kant's analysis of the categories of time and space, but in the end what the price must do is have a paradigm-change, in the Kuhnian sense, and let himself get persuaded by the world-view of Moore.
In other word, what you need to do is not only to put your ideas out there, but put them in a form that is attractive, so your lifestyle (in the grander, civilization-level sense) becomes more appealing than whatever beliefs your discussion partner has. Also, by simply acting our your thoughts and practices you are providing an example for your ideas.
If, for any reasons, anyone would want to know more, I'd recommand Wittgenstein's later work: Philosophical Investigations; On Certainty; Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics