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

[joe1776]

I called in to Ray Briem's show a few times when I disagreed with him. I don't think it's impossible to challenge someone like that, even if it's on their own turf. The trouble overall that I see is the preponderance of echo chambers, but no real attempt at understanding or learning other points of view. Even if nothing else, there is a certain value in knowing one's enemy.

That's true. Debate is a competition. We need to know our opponent's tactics, but the goal of an argument ought to be to persuade intelligent, unbiased minds that you're right. Going on Hannity's show, and playing by his rules, makes it unlikely that the few intelligent, unbiased viewers he has can be persuaded. So, what's the point?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

If they were genuine in their offer they would agree to a debate at an independent venue with a moderator that both parties agreed to. Agreeing to debate on one of their shows is close to a death wish, debate wise. The host cannot be a fair moderator in his own debate.

 

[Stevicus]

I found out that it's useless to talk with people who are disparaging others. When you belittle others you prove that you are arrogant which proves by definition that you have no respect for others, and talking with such people is a waste of time and you only encourage them to continue with their destructive way of life.

Talking with arrogant people is only about them, they only want to glorify themselves even at the cost of others. I don't want to be a part of that, otherwise I would encourage such behavior

Sometimes it can be a matter of exposure. Arrogant people tend to be mentally unstable, and if you goad them or prod them enough, they can lose their composure, get angry, and say something that they didn't intend to say. One could call it "trolling the troll."

 

[Stevicus]

All I saw in the OP was about badmouth hosts trying to recrute important people on their shows, obviously to get more fame for themselves, and belittling those politicians who did not come to their shows to defend themselves (cancel culture)

It's a form of weakness to defend yourself. Especially if you know you are right, there is no need to defend yourself, so I totally agree that politicians don't go to such shows

Actually, many politicians go on TV and radio shows, although it largely depends on the circumstances. Sometimes, when a politician is attacked in the media, they might feel compelled to appear to defend themselves, even if they believe they're right. They would still seek the opportunity to present their side to the audience.

In that case there are other (much better) ways to get your message out, instead of helping megalomaniac hosts getting their ego boosted again

And I think you are right, that in the 60s and 70s people were more open to listen to other views. Probably because there was no internet available. People are data immune nowadays by the flood of data coming into their brains. There is a limit the brain/system can handle

Prior to that era, when the right-wing mostly held the upper hand in the U.S. political culture, they also didn't see any need to debate the opposition. But ignoring their opponents didn't make them go away, and eventually, the tide of public opinion turned against them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

That's right: some people realize that the Gish Gallop is a dishonest tactic and shut it down when their opponent tries to use it.

 

[stvdv]

Arrogant people tend to be mentally unstable, and if you goad them or prod them enough, they can lose their composure, get angry, and say something that they didn't intend to say. One could call it "trolling the troll."

I like that "trolling the troll"

True, they are unstable, and easy say stupid things. Even if they say stupid things, they will never admit they were wrong

And you better be careful, these mentally unstable, suppressing their emotions a life long, can be even dangerous. Once I cornered my father, and he refused to admit, and instead, losing his control, hit me with his fist in the face, I went knock out for a few seconds. Good lesson, these arrogant people are not worth my attention anymore, waste of my valuable time

 

[stvdv]

That's right: some people realize that the Gish Gallop is a dishonest tactic and shut it down when their opponent tries to use it.

I did not know "Gish Gallop". Thanks for sharing. I did see on RF 1 person having kind of a habit to silence others by a serie of questions. Probably he read about Gish Gallop, and found it handy to use it. Good to know that it's a known technique.

 

[Stevicus]

The "arguments" of the moon landing hoaxers are usually misunderstandings of physics and maths. So the answers are usually lectures about those topics.

That's not a debate. A debate is a back and forth between two knowing parties. When one party is ignorant about the facts or the position of the other party, it's a lecture.
Take a typical "debate" on evolution. An evolutionary biologist wouldn't partake in it because the creationists don't have arguments against evolution, they have a severe lack of knowledge about science in general. They don't need an evolutionary biologist, they need a science teacher.

Perhaps, although sometimes the argument isn't necessarily about the science itself, but more about semantics. For example, arguments over whether evolution is a "fact" or a "theory." For something like that, do they need a science teacher or a language teacher?

In fact, that's what a lot of debates seem to entail, more than the actual facts themselves. It's oftentimes about language and how things are presented, sometimes requiring an understanding of the political culture and societal context.

For example, if someone advanced the proposition that "All lives matter," the average person (assuming they're uninitiated in the societal context and political culture) might think "Yes, that sounds reasonable to me." Another person might argue "No, that's racist," and that may be a basis for a debate over language - but not necessarily over the underlying principles.

 

[Stevicus]

That's true. Debate is a competition. We need to know our opponent's tactics, but the goal of an argument ought to be to persuade intelligent, unbiased minds that you're right. Going on Hannity's show, and playing by his rules, makes it unlikely that the few intelligent, unbiased viewers he has can be persuaded. So, what's the point?

Well, maybe some of those viewers/listeners might be persuaded, as long as the person knows the audience he or she is attempting to reach.

 

[Stevicus]

If they were genuine in their offer they would agree to a debate at an independent venue with a moderator that both parties agreed to. Agreeing to debate on one of their shows is close to a death wish, debate wise. The host cannot be a fair moderator in his own debate.

I wouldn't expect him to be. As I mentioned above, I've called in to conservative talk shows where I've disagreed with the host. One time it got a bit funny when we had a few moments of "yes it is"/"no it isn't"/"yes it is"/"no it isn't" - just like the Monty Python Argument Sketch.

 

[Stevicus]

That's right: some people realize that the Gish Gallop is a dishonest tactic and shut it down when their opponent tries to use it.

Interesting. From the link, the article says:

If a debater is familiar with an opponent who is known to use the Gish gallop, the technique may be countered by pre-empting and refuting the opponent's commonly used arguments first, before the opponent has an opportunity to launch into a Gish gallop.[8]

That, it would seem, would be an important first step in preparing for any debate. One has to first anticipate the counter-arguments and pre-empt them from the onset.

 

[Stevicus]

I like that "trolling the troll"

True, they are unstable, and easy say stupid things. Even if they say stupid things, they will never admit they were wrong

And you better be careful, these mentally unstable, suppressing their emotions a life long, can be even dangerous. Once I cornered my father, and he refused to admit, and instead, losing his control, hit me with his fist in the face, I went knock out for a few seconds. Good lesson, these arrogant people are not worth my attention anymore, waste of my valuable time

Reminds me of my older brother. Eventually, I grew taller and stronger than him, so he wasn't able to use that approach with me any longer.

 

[Stevicus]

I did not know "Gish Gallop". Thanks for sharing. I did see on RF 1 person having kind of a habit to silence others by a serie of questions. Probably he read about Gish Gallop, and found it handy to use it. Good to know that it's a known technique.

I had never heard of it either. However, it seems it would only come into play in a live debate. A text-based debate would have a different dynamic, as fast talkers and interrupters would lose their advantage.

That is one of the drawbacks of most talk-based forums, as humans have an unfortunate propensity to interrupt others and not let them finish what they're going to say.

 

[joe1776]

That's right: some people realize that the Gish Gallop is a dishonest tactic and shut it down when their opponent tries to use it.

How would one shut it down?

 

[Shaul]

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Proverbs 26:4

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Interesting. From the link, the article says:



That, it would seem, would be an important first step in preparing for any debate. One has to first anticipate the counter-arguments and pre-empt them from the onset.

So you think that a debater needs to:

- invest a lot of time and effort in researching what arguments the other person is going to use,
- invest even more time and effort in developing counter-arguments, whether the other person uses them or not, and
- in the debate, give their own time to the other person's arguments.

This sounds like a significant investment of resources. Do you still think that it's appropriate for someone to do all this every time someone asks for a debate?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Proverbs 26:4

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. Proverbs 26:5.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How would one shut it down?

One response:

- call the tactic out for what it is.
- acknowledge that the Gish Galloper's arguments have been refuted.
- acknowledge that time available doesn't allow a full discussion of exactly how the argument was refuted.

Sometimes, it can also help to reframe the debate in favour of your own position (e.g. "we can see through *set of facts* that X is true, which shows that my opponent is mistaken in his arguments that X is false").

 

[Stevicus]

So you think that a debater needs to:

- invest a lot of time and effort in researching what arguments the other person is going to use,
- invest even more time and effort in developing counter-arguments, whether the other person uses them or not, and
- in the debate, give their own time to the other person's arguments.

This sounds like a significant investment of resources. Do you still think that it's appropriate for someone to do all this every time someone asks for a debate?

Anticipating and understanding the counter-arguments one's opponent might advance is standard procedure in preparation for any debate.

 

[Stevicus]

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Proverbs 26:4

Matthew 7:1