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

[Revoltingest]

but ......but......

frubals are worthless?

Exactly.

 

[Thief]

and only cogent arguments are accepted.

but that part.....is debateable

 

[Thief]

Exactly.

my investors are going to be....soooooooooooo upset

 

[Secret Chief]

Life's too short to waste it on misery.

Too true. In a former life I spent a great deal of time and effort interacting with a Theosophist who had a view on Buddhism that I felt incorrect. Where did the Buddha say that Jews were an inferior race? I learned something from that long debate.

 

[sun rise]

Whoever is the better arguer, wins.

Should win.

debates are, fundamentally, a form of entertainment of sorts

And sometimes I'm entertained by them proving that I have bad taste.

It's a spectacle where soundbites, fallacies and a few reasonned arguments are slinged around.

If we're lucky. Some "debates" are reason-free.

 

[Quagmire]

Life's too short to spend your time arguing with people who already have their minds made up.

 

[Heyo]

Or maybe RF would be too small time for such big name celebrities as that.

Maybe Fox News would be too small for the celebrities they are calling out?

I'm with @Brickjectivity on this one (Post #6). Their shows are not a proper environment for a debate and they won't come out into a fair environment.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

In some debates, such as creationist debates, I oftentimes watch to get an idea of both sides and points of view, try to get an idea where both sides are coming from. Some debaters might go over each argument, point by point, while others might respond with some kind of throwaway one-liner where they're indicating that they disagree or they think the other person is wrong, but they won't say why.

 

[Heyo]

That's why many biologist refuse to debate biblical creationists, astronomers flat earthers, medical doctor quacks, historians holocost deniers, etc.

"That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine." - Robert May

 

[halbhh]

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.

Having debated for decades, and now being older, I've learned that after a certain point, it's useless to continue to argue with someone after each have said their key assumptions and ideas and there is no real discussion -- typically if the person is stuck in their position so strongly they can't even acknowledge things to agree with out of a dozen things being said by the other person. To argue with someone that invested/desperate in their position doesn't help. They might have an unacknowledged emotional reason to insist on their interpretations or assumptions or ideas about facts, and so on, so that arguing doesn't help them in any way. So, even after dozens of posts, I sometimes realize it's not helping to argue with an anti-religious person set in their views, and may simply cease to discuss with them on that topic.

 

[Stevicus]

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

In this context it is a sign of common sense (using my brains), to not debate with him; some people I rather avoid
I would call it intellectual weakness on his side and probably inferiority complex, reading he is didparaging others

Possibly true, but that's how one can be exposed as well. But I guess I was addressing those who keep complaining about how the hoi polloi are so misinformed or ignorant. If that's how some people feel, then it's rather strange that they would refuse to take advantage of an opportunity to reduce the ignorance they're decrying so much.

 

[osgart]

Refusing to debate is often a matter of aims in talking. Or it's lacking sufficient facts, or compelling proofs.

Not everything compels people the same. A lot of interesting topics may come up that bring people to a learning phase, instead of an argument phase.

 

[Vinayaka]

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.

In some cases, what the person wants isn't a debate, but the opportunity to yell, and spread their views. So no, why would anyone want to enter a 'debate' that isn't a debate at all?

 

[Revoltingest]

Life's too short to spend your time arguing with people who already have their minds made up.

Or....
Life's too long to endure fanatical windbags bent on preaching at us.

 

[Quagmire]

Or....
Life's too long to endure fanatical windbags bent on preaching at us.

That's what the trapdoor button under my desk is for.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

Usually not.

Consider Marjorie Taylor Greene trying to goad AOC into a debate on the Green New Deal. The reason to refuse that is that the informed people are not only uninterested in what a person like Greene thinks, but don't want to treat her as an equal by debating her, nor to give her a platform to spew her misinformation. What do we care what a climate denier who spouts insane conspiracy theories about Jewish lasers in space thinks about climate science or the New Greene Deal? Not all opinions are equal.

Or those on the right champing at the bit to see Biden debate Putin. Why would Biden do that? Why treat Putin like he's credible, or an equal, or not a killer or thug, or give him a voice on international media? That's a guy to rebuke and sanction, not debate.

This is an issue for me here on RF. There are posters that I rebut, but tell that I don't want to debate, because I consider it pointless if we don't have certain values, beliefs, and skills in common. When dealing with people that are miles from my position - whether they're creationists, Trump or Republican supporters, climate deniers, call COVID a hoax, etc. - I realize that this person doesn't just have different beliefs than I do, he has a radically different method of arriving at them. He and I don't decide what is true about the world the same way, and there is too much of a gulf in our thinking to begin trying to bridge. This is a person who doesn't use valid reasoning applied to all of the relevant evidence dispassionately to arrive at conclusions, and I have nothing else to offer, so it is pointless to proceed.

So there are plenty of good reasons to refuse debating certain people on certain topics.

 

[PureX]

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

Neither.

It's a sign of having understood the pointlessness of debating with someone who has no interest in actual debate, but only seeks to assuage their ego by any means available.

Nothing will be learned by either participant, and much time and energy will simply be wasted.

 

[joe1776]

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 think we need to recognize that debating Sean Hannity on HIS show, with HIS rules would be kinda stupid. Debating Hannity in a moderated setting quite another. So, his claim of weakness when others won't come on the show is for HIS audience only. It's preaching to the choir and has no persuasive value for unbiased minds.

 

[halbhh]

Or....
Life's too long to endure fanatical windbags bent on preaching at us.

So true. Also, as my viewpoints changed, that remained the same -- little to no willingness to listen to a windbag preaching at me, so it was independent of the viewpoint or ideas of the preacher or their ideology (both 'Christian' and 'atheist' alike).

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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.

I don't know about this. There is something to be said for the lesser prepared, or more incorrect side getting a good, public lashing. It doesn't really matter, at all (in my opinion) whether you actually convince your opponent to change their personal views. It matters much, much more what the audience got out of it, and who they are swayed to feel had the better grasp and portrayal of the more defensible, or "better" position.