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

[Heyo]

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?

Depends on the level of the debate. Professional debaters ask (and get) 5 or even 6 figures on a single evening. I think we can then expect for them to come prepared.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Depends on the level of the debate. Professional debaters ask (and get) 5 or even 6 figures on a single evening. I think we can then expect for them to come prepared.

Sure. That's not the case for debating creationists online, though, or the OP's scenario of a local call-in show who wants a local politician to debate the show's host.

And it's also worth pointing out for @Stevicus that even professional debaters turn down lots of debate requests.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Sure. Properly preparing for a real debate takes work.

You seem to understand this, so your OP puzzles me. Do you not put any value on your own time?

 

[Stevicus]

Sure. Properly preparing for a real debate takes work.

You seem to understand this, so your OP puzzles me. Do you not put any value on your own time?

Sure, but if it involves discussing issues and events which ostensibly have an impact on people's lives and the direction the country is going, isn't it worth the time?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure, but if it involves discussing issues and events which ostensibly have an impact on people's lives and the direction the country is going, isn't it worth the time?

More worth their time than whatever else the person could be doing? This seems to be something that you would have no way of knowing.

And why would you think that merely discussing issues is automatically worthwhile? Why don't you think that asking how likely the discussion is to change hearts or minds should be a factor in deciding whether to participate in a debate?

 

[stvdv]

However, it seems it would only come into play in a live debate.

I did see someone use it here a few times, shooting some questions with some unknown (Arabic) spiritual words in it (not explained), knowing that the other could not reply. Of course it is possible, if you study, to reply, but I would not do it. And it worked, the other gave up.

And of course, in a live debate, the impact is even bigger, because you can't just google and research. But the idea is the same

 

[Stevicus]

More worth their time than whatever else the person could be doing? This seems to be something that you would have no way of knowing.

And why would you think that merely discussing issues is automatically worthwhile? Why don't you think that asking how likely the discussion is to change hearts or minds should be a factor in deciding whether to participate in a debate?

I look at debate as a form of communication, just as there are other forms of communication - such as marching in the streets, protesting, writing letters to the editor, writing posts on message boards, TV/radio talk shows, YouTube videos, etc. Even violence is a form of communication, although a horrendous one.

I have read articles and seen people attempting to communicate their concerns about political factionalism, the tone and rhetoric in the narrative, societal ignorance, lack of critical thinking skills - along with many other problems which informed and thinking people are genuinely concerned about. Are they just wasting their time?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I look at debate as a form of communication, just as there are other forms of communication - such as marching in the streets, protesting, writing letters to the editor, writing posts on message boards, TV/radio talk shows, YouTube videos, etc. Even violence is a form of communication, although a horrendous one.

I have read articles and seen people attempting to communicate their concerns about political factionalism, the tone and rhetoric in the narrative, societal ignorance, lack of critical thinking skills - along with many other problems which informed and thinking people are genuinely concerned about. Are they just wasting their time?

Are you allergic to answering the question?

 

[Stevicus]

Are you allergic to answering the question?

My post was in response to the question. What part do you need clarified?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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

People argue with me all the time, though!!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

1. Getting someone onto their shows provides content for TV presenters. There is nothing for them to lose in basically daring everyone to come on their shows.

2. Some shows want to portray a certain image. 'Strength and fearlessness' can be part of an overall picture they're trying to paint.

3. If going onto a show in 'enemy territory' you'd need a level of faith that your content will be shown in context and edited in good faith. That's a lot of trust you're putting in someone, and not something I'd suggest those mentioned in the OP have earned.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My post was in response to the question. What part do you need clarified?

If you acknowledge that debating properly takes a fair bit of work, and you think that someone should accept any and every invitation to debate regardless of what they're likely to get out of it, then you're effectively saying that this person's time has no value.

So for starters, I'd like you to say "yes - my time has no value."

Once we have that out of the way, we can explore why you think everyone else shouldn't value their time.

 

[Stevicus]

1. Getting someone onto their shows provides content for TV presenters. There is nothing for them to lose in basically daring everyone to come on their shows.

2. Some shows want to portray a certain image. 'Strength and fearlessness' can be part of an overall picture they're trying to paint.

3. If going onto a show in 'enemy territory' you'd need a level of faith that your content will be shown in context and edited in good faith. That's a lot of trust you're putting in someone, and not something I'd suggest those mentioned in the OP have earned.

Well, if it's a live show, then it would just be a straight back-and-forth. There wouldn't be any editing.

I remember when they used to have Hannity and Colmes, although I don't remember whatever happened to that show.

 

[Stevicus]

If you acknowledge that debating properly takes a fair bit of work, and you think that someone should accept any and every invitation to debate regardless of what they're likely to get out of it, then you're effectively saying that this person's time has no value.

I said all that?

So for starters, I'd like you to say "yes - my time has no value."

Why should I say that?

Once we have that out of the way, we can explore why you think everyone else shouldn't value their time.

Well, if you really value your time so dearly, you can always save time by withdrawing from this discussion. Just a thought.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well, if it's a live show, then it would just be a straight back-and-forth. There wouldn't be any editing.

Agree. Live debates are interesting for different reasons. They can become almost political in tenet, with clear, punchy messages and a touch of humour winning the day against mere accuracy.


Some pundits do seem keen to give opposing views a fair hearing (even if disagreeing with them). I think it's worth identifying and supporting those conversations, but many people seem to prefer having their existing opinions reinforced. All at once I'm pretty good at understanding people, and also find them confusing...!!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I said all that?

Effectively, yes.

Why should I say that?

Honestly, I'd rather you didn't. It would be better if you used this moment to rethink your position and recognize that there are reasons someone might refuse a debate that have nothing to do with "intellectual weakness."

Are you ready to do that?

Well, if you really value your time so dearly, you can always save time by withdrawing from this discussion. Just a thought.

Maybe stop trying to impose your values on others. I'll be the judge of whether what I do is worth the time.

 

[Stevicus]

Effectively, yes.

I think you're assuming too much. For one, I don't recall ever saying "any and every invitation to debate."

Honestly, I'd rather you didn't. It would be better if you used this moment to rethink your position and recognize that there are reasons someone might refuse a debate that have nothing to do with "intellectual weakness."

Are you ready to do that?

Let's just look at the situation. First, I reject your claim that people refuse to debate because their time is so valuable, at least in the sense that one can clearly see what politically motivated people actually do with their time.

If they have time to march in the streets, they have time to debate. If they have time to write long agonizing screeds about how troubled they are over the direction of the country, then they have time to debate. If they have time to post endless self-righteous complaints about Fox News, Trump, Capitol protesters, or anything else that bothers them, then they have time to debate. If they have time to write a throwaway one-liners making personal attacks at people they disagree, then they have time to debate. If they have time to lambaste and "cancel" somebody, then they have time to debate.

Obviously, there are people who take time to express their dissatisfaction with things. They'll castigate people and label others as "deplorables," but when asked to explain themselves, they say "I don't have time"? That's what you're claiming here, and I'm just not buying it.

I don't see what the problem is. If people want to take time to challenge and address issues which are important to them, why would they suddenly turn 180 and claim "I don't have time to talk about it"?

Yes, I understand there are reasons that people might refuse a debate. However, if one's views are publicly challenged and an individual refuses to address criticisms or opposing arguments (even if it's not in the context of an actual debate), then they should at least be willing to provide something other than sanctimonious diatribes and appeals to emotion. That is, if they truly care so much about the issues they claim to care about. If they don't, then they're either hypocrites or they simply don't understand the issues they're addressing well enough to discuss them intelligently. Many people just gibber or repeat things they heard on TV, but they often don't really know what they're talking about.

So, that's why I asked. I honestly didn't intend to upset or offend you in any way, but in all honesty, I do care about the issues affecting this country.

Maybe stop trying to impose your values on others. I'll be the judge of whether what I do is worth the time.

I'm not imposing anything on anyone. I'm merely asking questions and posting observations.