Is refusing to debate a sign of intellectual weakness or inferiority complex?

[Stevicus]

Occasionally when driving, I'll give a listen to a local Fox News affiliate, where the morning commentator is a bit of a loudmouth and makes all kinds of statements against state and local politicians. However, he keeps saying over and over (to the people he's disparaging), "If you don't like what I'm saying, you're welcome to come on the show and we can debate." I've heard Sean Hannity and Marc Levin say similar things, that they'd welcome their opposition on the show so they can talk it out. But their opponents won't come on the show, so these guys make it appear as if they're afraid to come on, implying that they're intellectually weak or cowardly.

This is further compounded by criticisms of cancel culture, where the corporate/academic left is criticized for wanting to shut down opposing viewpoints and not debate them. This seems especially incongruous for academia, which has sometimes prided itself on being an open forum for the exchange of ideas.

Back in the 60s and 70s, people would be intellectually flexible and willing to debate just about anything, even if it meant staying up all night to discuss the meaning of life.

Nowadays, though, it seems more and more people have become ideologically rigid and fossilized. It seems that what passes for "debate" nowadays is competing forms of posturing with both sides talking past each other, but no real "meeting of the minds," as it were. People also seem to have much shorter attention spans these days as well. If anything goes beyond short soundbites or "three things you need to know," it gets lost somewhere.

 

[Vee]

What if refusing to debate is simply a strategy of self preservation?

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I don’t know these particular people you speak of, but overall, I think you’re right.

I do not know of good solutions to this tendency though.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Revoltingest]

What if refusing to debate is simply a strategy of self preservation?

And sound judgment.
We all know that certain poster here who'd gladly waste our
time bickering over minutiae, hypotheticals, & loopy theories.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Nope. If someone continues a debate with an oversimplified or inane outlook on the topic then continuously engaging them isn't going to change anything. You can't reason someone out of something they didn't arrive at through reason.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If Sean Hannity and Marc Levin want to debate let them come here where they aren't in control and can't edit out their foibles, have to speak in turn, can't predetermine what will be discussed and can be fact checked during the conversation.

 

[Stevicus]

What if refusing to debate is simply a strategy of self preservation?

I understand, although I wasn't really referring to individuals on message boards or social media. I was thinking more in terms of those at a public level and how ideas are presented to the people in general. It seems to guide and influence the direction of the general narrative one sees, as well as the voting public and the tone of those who take a more activist stance on issues.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Occasionally when driving, I'll give a listen to a local Fox News affiliate, where the morning commentator is a bit of a loudmouth and makes all kinds of statements against state and local politicians. However, he keeps saying over and over (to the people he's disparaging), "If you don't like what I'm saying, you're welcome to come on the show and we can debate." I've heard Sean Hannity and Marc Levin say similar things, that they'd welcome their opposition on the show so they can talk it out. But their opponents won't come on the show, so these guys make it appear as if they're afraid to come on, implying that they're intellectually weak or cowardly.

This is further compounded by criticisms of cancel culture, where the corporate/academic left is criticized for wanting to shut down opposing viewpoints and not debate them. This seems especially incongruous for academia, which has sometimes prided itself on being an open forum for the exchange of ideas.

Back in the 60s and 70s, people would be intellectually flexible and willing to debate just about anything, even if it meant staying up all night to discuss the meaning of life.

Nowadays, though, it seems more and more people have become ideologically rigid and fossilized. It seems that what passes for "debate" nowadays is competing forms of posturing with both sides talking past each other, but no real "meeting of the minds," as it were. People also seem to have much shorter attention spans these days as well. If anything goes beyond short soundbites or "three things you need to know," it gets lost somewhere.

I guess it depends on perspective.

I can see a high profile formal debate being refused if no time for proper research or preparation prior has been conducted. It's a sign a person is not prepared or not confident he or she would win.

Debates like here on RF is the popcorn kind where you dive right in.

I don't think it's really intellectual weakness in general other than maybe poor research. I think it's more in line that some people don't like the conflict debating brings more than anything else.

 

[F1fan]

Debate typically implies a certain good faith, and that each position has a factual and true basis. People ideally present their case and use facts, or data, or logical outcomes to demonstrate why their view is better.

I've seen what creationists and some far right people have done as a strategy in debate is to hit their opponent with a string of false claims, and the opponent needs to take each point and correct the error. This is bad faith debate.

I suspect the fed right has adopted this from creationists. What I have seen is a creation list out a number of false conclusions in science, or misrepresent science, and then form their argument on these false claims. So the opponent to these creationists use all their time correcting error and don't have adequate time to argue the science. Creationists then claim victory. This is basically fraud to my mind.

I've seen many republicans, and even some democrats, being interviewed and they say factually incorrect things on air, and the interviewer struggles to correct the misrepresentation to not help spread disinformation. Hannity is an example of a poor analyst, he's not even a journalist, he has no training in ethics. So many with a legitimate set of positions to debate will refuse to engage with unethical people who's intent is to misrepresent what is factual and true. No weakness in that.

 

[sun rise]

And sound judgment.
We all know that certain poster here who'd gladly waste our
time bickering over minutiae, hypotheticals, & loopy theories.

Behind me, satan. I was tempted by that. Oh so tempted.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Nope. If someone continues a debate with an oversimplified or inane outlook on the topic then continuously engaging them isn't going to change anything. You can't reason someone out of something they didn't arrive at through reason.

So... were we to debate what you just wrote here, I may for example ask what you mean by “oversimplified” reasoning. How do you reach the conclusion that someone has oversimplified something and why would you not wish to illustrate to them that this is so, once you are certain enough of your assessment?

 

[Secret Chief]

Occasionally when driving, I'll give a listen to a local Fox News affiliate, where the morning commentator is a bit of a loudmouth and makes all kinds of statements against state and local politicians. However, he keeps saying over and over (to the people he's disparaging), "If you don't like what I'm saying, you're welcome to come on the show and we can debate." I've heard Sean Hannity and Marc Levin say similar things, that they'd welcome their opposition on the show so they can talk it out. But their opponents won't come on the show, so these guys make it appear as if they're afraid to come on, implying that they're intellectually weak or cowardly.

This is further compounded by criticisms of cancel culture, where the corporate/academic left is criticized for wanting to shut down opposing viewpoints and not debate them. This seems especially incongruous for academia, which has sometimes prided itself on being an open forum for the exchange of ideas.

Back in the 60s and 70s, people would be intellectually flexible and willing to debate just about anything, even if it meant staying up all night to discuss the meaning of life.

Nowadays, though, it seems more and more people have become ideologically rigid and fossilized. It seems that what passes for "debate" nowadays is competing forms of posturing with both sides talking past each other, but no real "meeting of the minds," as it were. People also seem to have much shorter attention spans these days as well. If anything goes beyond short soundbites or "three things you need to know," it gets lost somewhere.

Of course it can be, and/or other reasons too. You can't argue with a sick mind

 

[Secret Chief]

Behind me, satan. I was tempted by that. Oh so tempted.

Talk about me like I'm not here why don't you. Hello? Hello?......................Hello?

 

[sun rise]

What some call 'debate' is an opportunity to pummel someone verbally. Avoiding that is avoiding what is at least a waste of time if not worse.

 

[sun rise]

Of course it can be, and/or other reasons too. You can't argue with a sick mind

bingo

 

[Stevicus]

Nope. If someone continues a debate with an oversimplified or inane outlook on the topic then continuously engaging them isn't going to change anything. You can't reason someone out of something they didn't arrive at through reason.

True, although a debate isn't necessarily an attempt to change the mind of one's opponent in a debate, as much as it's a way of persuading others who may be watching.

 

[Thief]

Occasionally when driving, I'll give a listen to a local Fox News affiliate, where the morning commentator is a bit of a loudmouth and makes all kinds of statements against state and local politicians. However, he keeps saying over and over (to the people he's disparaging), "If you don't like what I'm saying, you're welcome to come on the show and we can debate." I've heard Sean Hannity and Marc Levin say similar things, that they'd welcome their opposition on the show so they can talk it out. But their opponents won't come on the show, so these guys make it appear as if they're afraid to come on, implying that they're intellectually weak or cowardly.

same here at the forum

PROOF!.....PROOF!
oh.....no proof?
you lose

but of course.....the line of thought I offer
could be difficult to circumvent
proved or not

 

[crossfire]

Of course it can be, and/or other reasons too. You can't argue with a sick mind

Speak for yourself!

 

[Stevicus]

If Sean Hannity and Marc Levin want to debate let them come here where they aren't in control and can't edit out their foibles, have to speak in turn, can't predetermine what will be discussed and can be fact checked during the conversation.

I'm not sure if they'd come here.

 

[Valjean]

As RFers know well, facts and reasoned debate seems useless with someone already convinced he's right. Facts and logic roll off his back like water off a duck. Threads run to hundreds of posts with nothing resolved.
A radio format is even shorter than that of a talkboard, too short for an in-depth examination of historical or sociological facts. Replying to every challenge would be a massive waste of time.

Politics is often like team sports. You support your team no matter what, and often for no particular reason.