I would recommend that you check that assumption at the door. There are different forms of questioning and critique ranging from asking questions simply to understand and to learn versus asking questions to belittle and diminish others. The second of these is why members leave, and it happens more often than it should. There is no invisible, inherent agreement here.
That was a response to, "When one enters a debate, they inherently agree to subject their ideas to questioning and critique."
He specified debate, which is dialectic, or the method of resolving differences of opinion about what is true. Scientific peer review, formal debate, and courtroom trials all utilize this method of argument followed by a counterargument meant to falsify the argument. Debate ends with the last plausible, unrebutted claim
Let's illustrate with the courtroom model. A couple of attorneys attempt to falsify one another's argument with counterarguments. In a court of law, that begins with an opening statement by the prosecution and a theory of a crime. If this argument is convincing to a jury and not successfully rebutted, it's time for a verdict: guilty. But perhaps the defense can poke a hole in that theory, maybe by offering an alibi for the defendant. Perhaps there is cell tower ping data suggesting that the defendant wasn't present at the scene of the crime.
If this isn't rebutted, it becomes the last plausible unrebutted argument, and the jury is ready to vote for acquittal. But then, the prosecution produces photos of the suspect near the scene of the crime around the time it was committed, resuscitating the original theory of guilt. And once again, if this cannot be successfully rebutted - if it cannot be shown that the prosecution cannot be right - the debate is over and the jury able to convict. This is dialectic. Any other form of discussion is useless in deciding matters. And if an attorney doesn't even try to rebut his counterpart, his client loses the case
These are academic traditions, and those familiar with them generally learned dialectic, critical analysis, and the academic even and unemotional demeanor following years of higher education. The problem arises when those unfamiliar with these methods and habits of comportment are exposed to it and experience it as an affront, become offended and emotional, and either retreat or attack - both inappropriate in the academic settings I described, where all that is done is to agree or disagree and present a counterargument.
The pursuit of understanding doesn't require attackers and defenders. If anything, I would contend that making these topics into some sort of war is the problem, not the people who really, really don't like being attacked and feel like they are expected to defend the very essence of who and what they are. This silly warfare mindset is a major reason I do not bother with so-called debates. It hinders dialogue and the pursuit of understanding. If someone feels attacked and dogpiled, why on earth would they want to engage?
You just described the perception of attack and war I described. I don't experience debate as war, but I'm a product of that academic culture, where I learned that none of this is personal and learned to not feel personally attacked by dialectic or to react emotionally.
So what's one to do given this situation? I addressed this earlier when I wore, "
So should we protect their feelings and remain silent like our forebears were forced to do or just let them react however they will and let them deal with their reactions themselves?"
I choose the latter. If debate triggers one, that's his or responsibility to deal with, not the debater's. Either learn to not have emotional reactions like the academic has, or have them but learn to conceal them, or avoid debate whether than means simply not engaging in it here on RF or going off to find a more familiar culture where debate doesn't occur, or just being offended.
Yes, we could coddle them and protect them from ideas that offend them, which is something I might do if eating out with such a person, but this forum exists for both discussion and debate, and when in a debate forum, expect dialectic. Expect your claims to be falsified if they seem wrong to somebody with a sound counterargument, and if that triggers you, then you need to decide what to do about that. Like I said, that's a
them problem to deal with as they see fit.
And people like you can learn to understand all of this and stop blaming the debater for the emotional reactions that arise or the perception of war these people have rather than trying to reform the debater with comments like, "I would recommend that you check that assumption at the door." He was correct when he wrote, "When one enters a debate, they inherently agree to subject their ideas to questioning and critique." You might stop calling it war and attack and explain that it is not that nor intended to be that.
