How can we amicably debate?

[PureX]

Debates can be heated at times. Insults gets thrown around, emotions fluctuate. But no one is here for that (hopefully).

I want to discuss how we can amicably debate one another. Like, specific methods and tactics we can consciously do to foster peaceful, enjoyable, and fruitful debate.

It is our responsibility as the posters of this site to upkeep the pleasant atmosphere, even in the debate section. Well, at least that’s what I think. I don’t wanna crap all over where I like to hang out ya know what I mean?

I’ll start with a suggestion on how one can peacefully debate.

1. Log off
Emotions can make you type mean things. It’s so easy to get stuck with being constantly logged in with the urge to respond to every notification. But I advise you to log off at times and smell the flowers. When you come back, you will be in a better state of mind to amicably debate with your ideas.

2. Accept defeat (be open minded)
This isn’t a competition. It’s okay if you are wrong and it’s okay if you change your position after a debate.

So, what about you? Do you have general or specific advice for all of us ruffians who like to bout in the debate section?

I think it would be better to drop the idea of a "debate" all together and treat the interaction as a discussion. Keep in mind we are talking about theism, here. A subject that no one is going to "win". Or get to claim any degree of logical certainty. So all that will ever be achieved is an exchange of beliefs and opinions so that each participant can better understand the other's point of view.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Debates can be heated at times

If you mean debate in the literal sense, it's always amicable. If it becomes emotional, it's become a fight.

Dialectic is the cooperative effort of two or more parties to resolve differences regarding matters of fact by attempting to falsify one another's arguments until a last, plausible, unrebutted argument is made at which time, hopefully, a resolution is reached. This is the form that characterizes scientific peer review. This is a formal and disciplined form of discussion of the general form, "I think X because ...." and "I think not-X for these reasons which explain why I think that your position is incorrect".

Debate is a little broader than that and may include persuasive techniques such as appeals to emotion and specious argumentation, as with a courtroom trial or a formal debate as we see in politics.

If the discussants aren't actually attempting to falsify one another's positions (resolve differences of opinion), it's an informal discussion, perhaps of the form "I like X" and "I like Y better" or "Me, too."

If it becomes hostile, it's now a fight.

Dialectic and debate are academic forms and require an academic temperament, which is learned, and without which, disagreement is often taken personally and results in a change of tone to offended or hostile. I see that as the source of a lot of bad feelings on RF. If neither discussant can bring that temperament to the process, then hard feelings can begin with a personal attack, but when one can do that and the other can't, when things break down, it's a case of perceived attack, where counterargument is perceived as personal.

I see this frequently in the religious discussions, where one party is explaining why scripture is contradictory or in error, for example, and the other party understands that as attacking his religion and/or his god, and understands that as mean-spiritedness or rebellion against a good god.

 

[Quintessence]

Rule: Answer the question.

That is one of the most frustrating things for me, especially as I'm a big fan of the Socratic method. People evading a question or simply telling me that they don't have to and that I can't make them should be an indicator that the debate has ended (or never begun).
There are of course exceptions to the rule when the question has nothing to do with the topic, is simple sealinoing, or has been answered. But as a general rule, just answer the question or bow out of the debate.

I like the Socratic method myself, and it involves more than just asking questions, right? The questioning isn't disingenuous.

It is not uncommon that to see questions asked that are not really in keeping with the Socratic method but are instead leading questions, loaded questions, gotcha questions, that sort of thing. Or something less combative like asking a question that doesn't really make meaningful sense to the culture or worldview of the person you are talking to.

How does this sort of thing fit in here?

 

[JustGeorge]

Don't wind @JustGeorge up. Works for me.

Then why don't you employ that method more often?

Easier said then done. She's self winding.

Meh... too much work.

 

[Secret Chief]

Then why don't you employ that method more often?

too much work

 

[Heyo]

I like the Socratic method myself, and it involves more than just asking questions, right? The questioning isn't disingenuous.

It is not uncommon that to see questions asked that are not really in keeping with the Socratic method but are instead leading questions, loaded questions, gotcha questions, that sort of thing. Or something less combative like asking a question that doesn't really make meaningful sense to the culture or worldview of the person you are talking to.

How does this sort of thing fit in here?

There are of course exceptions to the rule when the question has nothing to do with the topic, is simple sealinoing, or has been answered. But as a general rule, just answer the question or bow out of the debate.

They would fall under the exceptions, or under other rules that might follow, like refraining from logical fallacies. Also, in an amicable debate, you should be allowed to question the question if you don't understand it or think it is invalid.
My experience is that people know that answering my questions would inevitably lead to them not being able to rationally defend their position - so they don't answer.

 

[Alien826]

There are a lot of "rules for debating" out there, some specific, some more general. Maybe we can put up a collection for use on RF? Not necessarily as binding rules, but as a suggestion for people who want to debate. Nobody would be forced to use them, but it would at least be clear to me when I'm in a debate (not in a shouting match).
One rule I like to have in the collection is:

Rule: Answer the question.

That is one of the most frustrating things for me, especially as I'm a big fan of the Socratic method. People evading a question or simply telling me that they don't have to and that I can't make them should be an indicator that the debate has ended (or never begun).
There are of course exceptions to the rule when the question has nothing to do with the topic, is simple sealinoing, or has been answered. But as a general rule, just answer the question or bow out of the debate.

I think creating some rules (let's call them guidelines?) would help to lower the temperature as well as structure the debate. Though each guideline may seem trivial in isolation, every little helps (as the old lady said when she peed in the sea). There, that's a guideline to continue @Heyo's excellent start. Inject humor when things seem to be getting too serious. And another. Don't forget to compliment what you see as good arguments as well as criticize bad ones.

It's all about lowering the temperature. Here's another.

Don't reply to posts with a single word ("rubbish"), or short sentences ("that's nonsense"), or emoticons ( ), with no explanation as to why you think that. It's the equivalent of turning your back on someone that speaks to you and refusing to acknowledge any further communication. It would be considered very rude IRL and tends to make the recipient angry, which is the real problem. If you don't think the post merits a response, don't reply at all.

OK. I'm trying to start a list here. I'll set them all out and invite additions. By the way some good suggestions have already been made. Feel free to add them anyway. Remember the objective of the guideline is to lower the temperature of the interaction, not to simply improve the quality of the debate.

1. Answer the question.

2. Inject humor when things seem to be getting too serious.

3. Compliment as well as criticize.

4. Avoid put downs with no explanation.

 

[Heyo]

I think creating some rules (let's call them guidelines?) would help to lower the temperature as well as structure the debate. Though each guideline may seem trivial in isolation, every little helps (as the old lady said when she peed in the sea). There, that's a guideline to continue @Heyo's excellent start. Inject humor when things seem to be getting too serious. And another. Don't forget to compliment what you see as good arguments as well as criticize bad ones.

It's all about lowering the temperature. Here's another.

Don't reply to posts with a single word ("rubbish"), or short sentences ("that's nonsense"), or emoticons ( ), with no explanation as to why you think that. It's the equivalent of turning your back on someone that speaks to you and refusing to acknowledge any further communication. It would be considered very rude IRL and tends to make the recipient angry, which is the real problem. If you don't think the post merits a response, don't reply at all.

OK. I'm trying to start a list here. I'll set them all out and invite additions. By the way some good suggestions have already been made. Feel free to add them anyway. Remember the objective of the guideline is to lower the temperature of the interaction, not to simply improve the quality of the debate.

1. Answer the question.

2. Inject humor when things seem to be getting too serious.

3. Compliment as well as criticize.

4. Avoid put downs with no explanation.

5. In a scientific or philosophical debate (where truth-finding is the goal), avoid logical fallacies.
(Fallacies, a.k.a. rhetorical devices, are allowed in political debates (where the goal is to convince an audience). Just try to not get caught in too many.)

 

[Quintessence]

They would fall under the exceptions, or under other rules that might follow, like refraining from logical fallacies. Also, in an amicable debate, you should be allowed to question the question if you don't understand it or think it is invalid.
My experience is that people know that answering my questions would inevitably lead to them not being able to rationally defend their position - so they don't answer.

This reminds me of another thing now that you mention - the weird expectations of "rationally defend." The Greek philosophers were unusual in that they had a belief that humans are "rational" animals and that is what is unique about humans. This belief made its way into contemporary Western culture in spite of its weirdness. It is treated like an incontrovertible religious truth by some humans - something must be "rational" or else. You must rationalize yourself or else. That's weird considering the vast majority of human experience and behavior is non-rational. Overthinking and overanalyzing is weird and silly.

Why isn't it enough for someone to just explain where they are coming from and that to be good enough?

 

[Heyo]

This reminds me of another thing now that you mention - the weird expectations of "rationally defend." The Greek philosophers were unusual in that they had a belief that humans are "rational" animals and that is what is unique about humans. This belief made its way into contemporary Western culture in spite of its weirdness. It is treated like an incontrovertible religious truth by some humans - something must be "rational" or else. You must rationalize yourself or else. That's weird considering the vast majority of human experience and behavior is non-rational. Overthinking and overanalyzing is weird and silly.

Why isn't it enough for someone to just explain where they are coming from and that to be good enough?

Because that would be a discussion, not a (philosophical) debate. Remember that the goal of a debate is to find the truth. That is only possible when rationality is rigorously applied. And while humans are mostly irrational, they are capable of rational thought when they focus on it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think it would be better to drop the idea of a "debate" all together and treat the interaction as a discussion. Keep in mind we are talking about theism, here. A subject that no one is going to "win". Or get to claim any degree of logical certainty. So all that will ever be achieved is an exchange of beliefs and opinions so that each participant can better understand the other's point of view.

I'm not sure about that. I'm thinking of all those debates between the fake 'Dr' Kent Hovind and the real BA degreed Aron Ra.

 

[Alien826]

5. In a scientific or philosophical debate (where truth-finding is the goal), avoid logical fallacies.
(Fallacies, a.k.a. rhetorical devices, are allowed in political debates (where the goal is to convince an audience). Just try to not get caught in too many.)

I'm wondering if this is more applicable to rules for a formal debate (or similar) rather than "how to amicably debate", which is the objective of the OP and what I'm trying to address. Yes it's a very good rule for debate and is valuable as such, but how would you apply it in a way that doesn't raise the temperature? As a suggestion, which I'll set out as another guideline...

6. Think about how you are saying it.

For example, "I see what you are trying to say, but the way you said it doesn't follow logically" might be better than "That's a logical fallacy, stupid!".

 

[JustGeorge]

For example, "I see what you are trying to say, but the way you said it doesn't follow logically" might be better than "That's a logical fallacy, stupid!".

The fact that this escapes some people baffles me.

 

[an anarchist]

God I’m corny

 

[Heyo]

I'm wondering if this is more applicable to rules for a formal debate (or similar) rather than "how to amicably debate", which is the objective of the OP and what I'm trying to address. Yes it's a very good rule for debate and is valuable as such, but how would you apply it in a way that doesn't raise the temperature? As a suggestion, which I'll set out as another guideline...

6. Think about how you are saying it.

For example, "I see what you are trying to say, but the way you said it doesn't follow logically" might be better than "That's a logical fallacy, stupid!".

I think I see what you are trying to say ...
It isn't as much a rule as it is good praxis to steel-man your interlocutors position. Don't assume to understand their position, make it as clear as possible.
I'm focussing more on the functional aspects of the rules. I don't mind heated (or simply objective) debates, as long as they stay rational. Keeping to the formal rules is a prerequisite to a courteous conversation.
But a friendly (literally amicable) debate is preferable, and people who get emotional quickly wouldn't be triggered as fast in a friendly environment.

 

[Heyo]

View attachment 98019
God I’m corny

Yep, some debaters just have no arguments.

 

[an anarchist]

Yep, some debaters just have no arguments.

I feel like non-preferable behavior is often met with non-preferable behavior. I know sometimes when someone is mean to me I am mean right back instead of logging off till I don’t care.

 

[Heyo]

I feel like non-preferable behavior is often met with non-preferable behavior. I know sometimes when someone is mean to me I am mean right back instead of logging off till I don’t care.

I usually let it rest for some time before answering. I like my answers to not be influenced by emotions. I can be much sharper and meaner (without getting banned), when I have time and calmness to construct my answer.

 

[Madsaac]

Just take what people say on here ‘with a grain of salt’

Not to take things to seriously and be open and appreciate learning something new. There’s been quite a few things I hadn’t heard of before coming on here.

So respect to those smart people…….who are respectful

 

[PureX]

I'm not sure about that. I'm thinking of all those debates between the fake 'Dr' Kent Hovind and the real BA degreed Aron Ra.

Debating a snake oil salesman is inevitably going to be a waste of time. Anyone of that ilk, or in that camp is not going to listen to logical reasoning or respect the value of an honest debate.

When I run into those folks on here I may ask a question or two, but then I let them be. They are not interested in anything I think, and I am not much interested in what they think. I am always curious about why they choose to think as they do, but I have long ago learned that they cannot tell me. Because they do not know.