A debater with thin skin is much like a soldier without composure: He isn’t much good to his craft, not to mention his cause.
I find myself debating a lot these days. Many of the topics revolve around business, brand management, crisis communications, Social Media, R.O.I. and marketing, while others touch on far more important ones like geostrategy, culture, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and Constitutional law. I believe debate to be a healthy pursuit – not simply an entertaining passtime – and engage in it with both delight and passion. I relish the opportunity to face off against another’s intellect and wit, especially when the act of debating an issue helps bring a discussion back from a place of hateful discord to one of mutual respect, if only for a few minutes.
It doesn’t mean both parties will agree or that one side will convert the other. I am not that naïve. All it means is that both parties will discuss the issue with respect towards each other. Debate is at its best an exercise in civility, at its worst an ugly, pointless brawl or shouting match.
The latter happens when emotions rather than reason get the best of someone involved.
Before you get to riled up, consider this that if debate is indeed a manner of combat (and it is,) it at least has the virtue of being bloodless. As such, it is a gentleman’s (and likewise a lady’s) sport. Losing an argument isn’t the end of the world. In fact, it may come with its share of benefits, not the least of which may be an education.
Now might be a good time to point out that debates are not about proving that one’s feelings about an issue should prevail. Debates are about arguing points, not feelings. “My feelings are more right than your feelings,” is an impossible argument. You might as well try to argue that your choice of a favorite color is better than someone else’s choice of their favorite color. It is completely pointless.
In every debate are two conjoined threads: One holds fast to reason while the other weaves itself into feelings and emotions. unless you want your exchange to degenerate into mindless hysterics, always focus on the former. While passion can – and should – drive a debate, it should never be the instrument of its discourse. Ever.
How this translates to this blog and exchanges I might have with you on Facebook, Twitter or even in the real world of face-to-face interactions is this: I will never tell you that your feelings about an issue are wrong. I may, however, tell you that your thinking around an issue is.
And then prove it to you.
When this happens, here’s how to best me: Prove me wrong. Not with feelings, not with arguments about feelings, and certainly not with anger, scorn, insults or threats. Best me with reason. If you make your argument, I will yield. (Gladly, in fact.) It happens regularly.
If you cannot make your argument, break off, give the topic of discussion more thought, do more research and try again when you’re better prepared.
Never will your feelings about an issue be enough to convince anyone of the validity of your position, especially if they revolve around anger. No emotion or personal belief, even if echoed by your peers, can ever justify the abdication of reason, especially in a debate. Show me your cool head. Show me the depth of your intellect. Show me the extent to which you have reflected upon an issue. Preparation here is key: Know what you are talking about. Know it from every possible angle. Consider all of the points of view, and recognize their every strength and weakness based on its own bias, not yours.
Only when you can see every angle can you consider yourself ready to enter into a debate – that is, a discussion about a topic with someone of the opposite viewpoint. Regarding this topic, here is something to consider: Spending most of your time both listening to a single viewpoint and discussing it with like-minded peers will not prepare you for a debate, the object of which is this: To prove the validity of your point in spite of your feelings, rather than by recruiting others to the emotion that secures your adherence to it.
A few tips on debating issues both online and offline:
1. Know the subject thoroughly. Not just your side of the issue, but all sides equally.
2. Trust both, but separate reason from emotion. The former is your ally. The latter is not.
3. Unless you live in a theocracy, morality and religion are subjective arguments, not objective arguments. Subjective arguments, while fascinating in certain social situations, have no place in reasonable debate.
(Update: Rick pointed out that I may be wrong about this in the comment section, and I see his point. Our discussion about context helps shed some light about this. I indeed failed to take into account the context of a debate when I suggested #3. He’s right.)
4. Respect your opponent even if s/he does not respect you. (Your professionalism, kindness and honor are yours. Their absence in an opponent has no bearing on your own.)
5. The moment either person involved loses their temper, the debate is over.
6. Thin skin and public debates do not mix.
7. Be aware that debating a point with an unreasonable person may be a complete waste of your time. Debating the virtues of civil rights legislation with a racist, for instance, may not be the most productive use of your time. Likewise, arguing ethics with a crook probably won’t get you anywhere. Just as worthy opponents make great sport, worthy opponents make great debates. Too one sided a contest typically yields disappointing results. Don’t waste your time on unworthy foes.
8. At least 1 out of 4 people who disagree with you may be utterly incapable of arguing a point objectively. See item 7 for further instructions.
9. If you represent a company or organization, heated debates may be ill-advised – especially when they touch on religion, sex and politics. If you are answerable to no one but yourself, no such limitations exist beyond those you impose on yourself. In either case, always remember item 4: The golden rule of public debates.
10. If you are bested, acknowledge it gracefully. If you win, thank your opponent for his/her gracious effort. All other outcomes are to be avoided whenever possible. Nothing is gained from the murder of civility, especially in matters of public debate.
One final note: Debate with heart, let outrage fuel your argument when it must, but keep your sense of humor close at hand. When all else fails, it may yet carry you through. The ability to laugh at yourself, at your own stumbles, at the witty barbs of your opponent when they deserve a nod, can be all the armor you need to compensate for any unwanted thinness of skin.
Brand Building and Online Marketing Blog 
Great post, except I’ll argue that this point in #3, “Subjective arguments, while fascinating in certain social situations, have no place in reasonable debate”, doesn’t rise to the level of your other DOs and DON’Ts. Whichever side of a debate you’re on, you can’t get away from your own subjectivity. Even without morality and religion coming into play, other avenues of education, culture, nurture – all of these are equally subjective and will be in play.
If not totally wrong, I’d rephrase that the subjective needs to remain subjective, not brought out as objective absolutes – as morality and religion have a tendency to be in those “debates”.
I’m glad you brought that up, since this topic is at the heart of current debates raging over 1st and 14th Amendments – from Gay rights and citizenship birthrights to the expansion of the Islamic Cultural Center in lower Manhattan.
Just last week, I read a wonderful argument in Steven Pressfield’s ‘Last of the Amazons’ in which the Free people of the steppes and the king of Athens prove that their respective ways of life are superior to the other. The exchange is brilliant. Both sides clearly make their case. Yet… neither wins. Why? Because the argument, no matter how well presented, how reasonable, how logical even remains subjective. Feelings about the superiority of their respective cultures rule the argument. Because of this, neither side can win the debate.
I guess it comes down to this: Some debates are merely social exercises. Discussing religion, politics or “ought to” issues, fueled by personal opinions only falls into this category. Other debates fall more into the category of legal arguments, as ones argued before a court of law, where one side must prevail over another based on something more substantial than mere prejudice. (Note that I don’t use the term in the pejorative.)
We agree, I think, in two areas:
1. Personal bias and subjective opinions do have a place in a debate.
2. This point is not as strong as the other nine – perhaps because I didn’t find the words to express it well. Perhaps I should have focused more on the importance of context.
Where we may disagree: Subjective bias, while at the heart of the opinion itself, cannot be the source of the arguments presented in testimony, either for or against it.
“It’s against the Bible” is not a valid argument when dealing with civil rights, for example.
“It’s morally wrong to take steroids” is also not a valid argument when dealing with a sport whose governing body allows the use of growth hormones and other stimulants.
Conversely, if the debate is about religion and within the context of a religious discussion – say, limited to the Christian faith, – then the subjectivity of “morals” or religious beliefs presented by Biblical tradition are perfectly acceptable arguments.
In this light, I completely see your point.
Can we agree then that the context of the debate has more impact on the validity of “the subjective” than I gave it credit for in this post?
Can it also be that sometimes, the disconnect exists here: That either party may not understand that the context of the discussion is not the same for both sides? One party may think the context is A while the other believes the context to be B – A being constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms (a secular discussion) while B might be a para-religious argument?
Thanks for pointing this out. You’ve made your argument. I yield to you, sir. 😉
Can totally agree that “context” is important and often has more impact than the subjective or even the objective. I’d fall in line with some other commenters that “winning” and “losing” might not be the way to judge how a debate comes through, and that your example (I’m going to have to read up to find that “context”!) would in my mind come as a “win” if both sides articulated well and was able to peaceably “agree to disagree”. Did they? Was there war in the aftermath?
The value of emotion in debates? They serve as a “dashboard warning light” to (s)he who felt the emotion.
When I get an emotion spike, it’s a message from within to ME to pay attention. Why does it bother me? Why am I offended/challenged/fearful? Once the emotion has been recognized/articulated, it is up to me to ferret out the cause, using reason and dispassionate review.
Your posts always make me think. Thank you. Best, M.
Great point.
hi great blog,
can you help me?
News Flash: Scientists and Doctors now admit that ten, witty concise ten word blogs per day help nourish your mind with the healthy excercise it needs, and also helps prevent Dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease in later life. Start exercising your extraordinarily talented wonderful mind today. Ten witty concise ten word blogs in a morning helps you work with an excellent nourished mind throughout the day, and gives you the intellectual strength to play in today’s tough industrial cyber markets as an ultimate creative inventive ingenious athelete. Start your training today.
take a look at my blog and start commenting, even promote your own blog – 1,000s of hits daily right here at wordpress.com
Cheers
Joe.
Thank you for posting this heartfelt comment on my blog. May you be rewarded by followers hits visitors advertising drugstore pharmaceuticals at low prices from 1,000s of comments from ultimate successful bloggers global from winning strategies.
You are my new hero for this response. 🙂
ditto!
Ditto, co-signed.
I love point number 7! If you see someone who debates with too much feeling and little reason (yourself included), get out of the debate before you both hurt somebody 🙂
Very interesting, well done.
Thanks.
Well said!
Are you ever out-debated?
Sure. I’m not always right. I actually love it when that happens. It means I’ve learned something new. 🙂
I really wanted to enjoy your post, but I quit debate in high school (even though I was amazing at it) and I hate people who try to ignite debate wherever they go (not that I hate you this post just made me think of them while I read it). Good luck with your future debates and thanks for the tips — but I think I will still try to avoid most debates.
Crystal
http://www.crystalspins.com
😀 I totally understand.
Whatever you do, never move to France then. We constantly argue about everything. The weather, politics, the relevance of chewing gum… it’s a thing.
The problem with most people who “debate” these days is that they seem to think that “winning” the debate is more important than producing actual, useful, relevant, actionable information/data/courses of action–and the media age makes this problem worse, not better.
Neil Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death” states that most of our most important social issues/debates are in effect ruined by the commercialization of media, and need for the “Great Sound Bite.”
Amazing book, if you haven’t read it. Even for a total techno-junky-media-geek like me, it made a heavy impression about how I approach media–to the point that I taught it as part of my Rhetorical studies class at Utah State University last year.
Thanks! Added to my reading list.
While debating is a fascinating exercise, and worthwhile in the real world, I tend to find that debating online can be futile. People don’t pull punches when they hide behind a monitor – and emotion often comes into play unwillingly. Great list of tips…much appreciated from a former debater and current s$%& disturber. 🙂
Ah yeah. Very true. It’s a different animal when you have to make eye contact. The anonymity of the web can turn people into complete jackasses. Agreed.
Likewise though, for some of us who spend a lot of time on the twitternets, being a bully can have consequences. Every statement can be blown out of proportion. Reputations (and even careers) can be easily damaged by a single tweet, whereas a face-to-face debate in a cafe would yield no such risks.
New rules for a new world, I guess. 🙂
The reason/emotion dichotomy is actually quite problematic in dealing with any issue related to oppression, because oppressed groups in our culture are generally associated with “emotion,” while dominant groups in our culture are generally associated with “reason.” I would also argue that there is no such thing as an objective argument from any non-omnicient being (pretty sure that includes all us humans). The position that is generally considered “objective” is (of course) the subjective view of the dominant group in society. So to people in positions of power in our culture, the views of women, people of color, people who aren’t straight, etc., are generally considered “subjective,” which the views of straight white men are considered “objective.”
You assume I am not omniscient. 😀
I’ll tell you this: From my experience, straight white men are no more objective than my chihuahuas. Every time I hear one (a straight white man, not a chihuahua) argue for the oppression or repression of anyone, that someone is rarely a straight white man.
Objectivity is this:
Accepting that families of Muslim victims of the 9/11 deserve a place of worship near Ground Zero as much as the families of Christian victims. That telling every major faith in the world that they can build a place of worship near the site, but telling Muslims “no, not you. You have to go somewhere else,” is absurd. Knowing that beyond whatever feelings of distrust, xenophobia and even hate one might harbor, Islam and terrorism are not the same thing.
Objectivity is being able to say: I am against this, but I cannot let my personal prejudice get in the way of doing what’s right for this person or these individuals. They are the ones in need of help. My discomfort is secondary to their need.
The mob can be the majority. The mob is rarely objective.
My chihuahuas are pack animals. There is no objectivity there. One barks, they all bark. One howls, they all howl. Objectivity happens outside of social groups, not inside of them. Only the individual can be objective. Without that separation from the pack, from the mob, from the tribe, objectivity is nigh impossible to achieve.
Cheers. 😉
Can there be objectivity in the absence of an opposing viewpoint? Assuming a rational debate, of course.
Ah sociology speaks ^_^. Usually a dominant white western European worldview would claim that everything outside of itself is illogical or does not follow reason no matter what because those peoples (people of color women children the queer community etc.) and their culture and needs threaten traditional white positions of power in a world colonized by white people and their notions of knowledge and wisdom. Therefore white is right (objective) and everyone is just touchy-feely (subjective).
An excellent piece about the white (American) worldview/lens can be found here: http://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/the-white-lens/
Great list! If I didn’t know any better I’d think you had a conversation with my boyfriend about this. We’ll debate anything with each other following these exact rules.
I also wish there was a way to send this list to everyone in the world (seriously). We sometimes find it hard to have debates with other people for the exact reasons you’ve listed.
Job well done sir!
Thank yaz.
I love debates, but they seem impossible in the world of Twitter.
How can you get through a reasoned and rational point in 140 chars?
Olivier,
I’m sure you’ve had countless such debates. Are there some Twitter specific rules you use? Or is Twitter communications just a general skill that some have?
Think of 140 characters as a reason to be succinct. It’s kind of like the 3-minute rule. If you can’t make your point in 1-5 tweets (before the next response), you probably don’t understand the subject clearly enough to debate it.
That said, Twitter is not the best medium for debates. It just isn’t. Facebook is better, for several reasons: Threads are easier to follow, you have more room to argue your point, and conversations don’t get lost into the ether after ten minutes.
My twitter specific rules are these:
1. When all else fails, don’t hesitate to call someone a dick. Works for me. Insults are still the best way to win an argument. Stay Classy, San Antonio!
2. Never enter into a debate with someone who knows the subject better than you. Losing is one thing, but showing your ignorance is kind of embarrassing. I avoid this at all cost.
3. No debates about cosmetic surgery, Japanese cinema or German literature. (See item #2.)
4. On twitter, 20 minutes = 3 hours in the real world. After 20 minutes, does anyone even care what the debate is about anymore? (Usually, no.)
5. Use lots of smiley faces to make sure people know you aren’t snarling at your computer and having fits of Wolverine-like rage.
6. Double-ply toilet paper. It’s just a good rule that applies to every part of my life, even this.
7. When you start feeling a little self conscious, reply in French. This is the equivalent of a pile-driver in wrestling. Cultural shock-and-awe. “Comme ci comme ca, beyotch!” See? Instant pwned. “Oh, I’m sorry… I forgot that your education was limited. Perhaps we should have this discussion after you’ve caught up a bit on your reading?” Works. Every. Time.
8. Use big words. It buys you time. Instead of thinking about his next retort, your opponent is frantically searching wikipedia.
9. Ask questions. This is clever because you can’t go wrong asking a question. You don’t commit to a statement. You instead draw your opponent into the open and force him to expose himself. If he doesn’t say anything stupid, you at least run the chance that he will contradict himself later. He who says the least in a debate usually wins. Bonus: Questions are shorter than answers, except for the whole yes and no thing.
10. When all else fails, you can ask your opponent if their mom made their avatar, and then feign an important meeting or phone call to abruptly end the conversation. “Oh, look at the time! I’m going to be late for my awesome poodle’s hair appointment.”
I have other rules, but these are the ones I have carved into stone next to my Twitter Command Center.
“When all else fails, don’t hesitate to call someone a dick. Works for me. Insults are still the best way to win an argument. ”
Words to live by in the Twitter world or really anywhere.
This could be a post all by itself. C’est l’awesomesauce. 🙂
That’s a really interesting post. I wish I could use your tips, but I must just come across the wrong debates. I am either so bored that I can’t be bothered responding or they make me so angry that I just have to keep my mouth shut. Perhaps I’m just not cut out for debates 🙂
Incidentally, I liked your response to the “News Flash” post.
Andi Brooks
I stay away from a fair share myself. #7: Sometimes, it just isn’t worth your time. 😉
I don’t think debate is a very healthy social exercise for the most part. Its a game like with lawyers in the court room. And the game is not always over some trifling thing like chewing gum or weather–which has been acknowledged here. Debaters need to remember that when you play the debate game on important issues you’re affecting someone’s life.
I don’t live in France so I can’t comment to that. But in the American media debate is a dangerously influential game because the masses are not educated enough to read through rhetoric or empathetic enough to understand how their decisions effect others.
You can use reasons to rationalize anything–rape slavery AND chewing gum. That’s the danger. Very little should revolve around ability to rationalize one’s point with reasons. Reason is subjective. Furthermore feelings and reasons are not two separate entities.
I too quit debate in high school for these reasons even though I was good at it.
That’s interesting. You raise a really good point:
“You can use reasons to rationalize anything–rape slavery AND chewing gum. That’s the danger. Very little should revolve around ability to rationalize one’s point with reasons. Reason is subjective.”
I’m going to come back to that. I need to give it some thought. It’s a really good point.
I do disagree with this though: “Furthermore feelings and reasons are not two separate entities.” I think they are separate. Here’s why.
Let’s say I hate neo-nazis. Under this assumption, my feeling is that they’re a hate group that has no place opening an educational center or museum anywhere near an elementary school or a place of worship. I would even go as far as to wish to see them banned from opening any pro neo-nazi “embassy” anywhere on US soil.
Under this assumption, this is the way I feel.
Now let’s discuss reason.
On the one hand, I can use my own feelings about neo-nazis to rationalize why they should be banned from opening their museum. Why the US should enact laws to protect “decent folk” from the hate neo-nazis produce all day long. Right? Right.
But on the other, I have to be reasonable and look at the other side of the issue: As much as I dislike neo-nazis, they have the right to believe what they want. They also have the same rights to free speech and freedom of assembly as everyone else in the community. I may not like it, but reason dictates that I consider other aspects of the issue beyond my own prejudice (feelings).
Then my actions become a choice. Not just an opinion, but a catalyst for action. And it is this: Do I choose to be unreasonable, and discard what I know is right in favor of my feelings about the issue? or do I choose reason, which forces me to accept that my feelings are secondary to the real issue at hand: Preserving their rights as I would have mine preserved?
This is reason.
I would propose that reason and rationalization are not the same thing. Rationalization is the process of building a case based upon a bias and a particularly convenient set of facts. That is why you can rationalize anything, from vegetarianism to genocide. Reason is different. It is a pursuit, not a process. To me, it is the practical application of unbiased wisdom. Reason asks not “how do I win this argument” but rather “what outcome best serves the purpose of the argument?”
The choice then is this: Do I win by suggesting the wisest course of action, or do I win by crushing my opponent with the weight of my argument, no matter how unreasonable?
You know, what this all may boil down to is this: Some of us use debate to find the best solution to a problem. It’s philosophy at its core. Others use debate to push and justify agendas. I could see how the latter would get under your skin. 😉
Your comment gives me chills because it’s so true, though the US doesn’t have a monopoly on this:
“In the American media, debate is a dangerously influential game because the masses are not educated enough to read through rhetoric or empathetic enough to understand how their decisions affect others.”
It scares me as well.
You raise a great point about the difference between rationalization and reason. The problem is that things like debate and INTERPRETATION of the law rarely seem to adhere the philosophy of reason (free of bias or prejudice).
What is considered wisdom differs wherever you go so how can there be “unbiased wisdom”? People don’t even agree on what wisdom is or whether other human beings are human.
Just wondering. I wished the things worked the way debate should by your definition. Sounds excellent.
Queenly
It isn’t easy. I’ll give you that.
I guess that’s the difference between logic and reason, perhaps. I don’t know.
Amen. And no more.
Great post and congrats on Freshly Pressed!
When it comes to social debate and commentary, while my main goal is to always argue with logic and reason, sometimes emotions can get in the way (as you might assume from the title of my own blog). As we’ve seen from recent events, however, when something (that should be) unwavering like the law is in play, emotions and feelings as well as accusations and insults certainly should have no place in the debate. One feeling is not superior to the other, nor should either be superior to the law. It’d be the equivalent of protesting against a Christian moving in next door because your child was molested by a Catholic priest.
My question, however, is what about situations where there is no law or clear-cut logic in play, only feelings? In an argument such as, “When you do/say (A), that makes me feel (B)” with (A) being an unintentionally hurtful remark or action and (B) being a emotionally negative reaction. How can there be a successful, non-emotional debate? There is no law against leaving dirty dishes in the sink after all, even if it makes your roommate or significant other feel grossed out or unappreciated.
Perhaps the only correct/logical answer in that circumstance is, if it’s an argument with your wife and you want a peaceful existence, just let her win. 🙂
Natina
http://humansareassholes.wordpress.com/
On the neighbor thing: Exactly.
The debate shouldn’t me lacking in emotion. It would be dull and horribly boring… kind of like the majority of first round political debates in which the emotion is faked and the political hopefuls are subjugating the discussion with lame soundbites. Great debates are fueled by emotion and feelings. Love, outrage, conviction… These are essential. 😉
But if the debate is only about feelings, then… I guess you don’t have much of a debate. What you have are two sides expressing feelings about something. In that instance, why not just say “I understand how you feel.” “So do I! I understand how you feel.” And either leave it at that or agree to create some rules or boundaries that solve whatever problem caused the hurt feelings between the two individuals. Can they agree to split the dishes? Can they agree to listen to the other without interrupting? That sort of thing.
As for the peaceful existence thing, who wants that?! ;D
Cheers.
That’s very true. I submit to your statement that debates should not be devoid of passion and conviction. What I should’ve said was that debate should not be driven or supported exclusively by emotion.
As for the “feelings only” argument, I suppose a life free of debate would be pretty boring. There’s really no such thing as a truly “peaceful” existence anyway. It’s about as unlikely a prospect as splitting the dish duties. A nice idea, but doomed to failure. 🙂
Natina
I can tell you are a reasonable debater. Something you’ve not only learned by experience but perhaps by sparring with some greats. Any word as to who bested to your delight?
PS… It’s so frustrating when both sides feel they’ve won.
I don’t keep track of who wins. It isn’t that big a deal to me. I should though, for times like these. 😉
Though, just today, in regards to this post, Rick convinced me to change my position on item #3.
One of the best debates (by all possible criteria) I ever laid eyes on is the one between Deepak Chopra (a personal favorite of mine) and Michael Schermer – you can find it online in the Skeptic archive, or just google “Chopra Schermer afterlife debate”. There is also an Oxford (I think, don’t quote me) handbook of civilized debate – something lots of people should (quickly) lay their hands on.
Congratulations on a great, and very useful, post! Debating, if done correctly and with the right amount of respect on both sides, can be one of the most entertaining things to do.
Cool! Thank you. I’ll check those out.
very nice i like it very good keep it up
As you might have guessed by my screenname, my blog is online to spark HEATED political debate. Emotion is great in poltical debates, as long as your emotional, heated rhetoric can be backed by facts. Your point on unreasonable people comes up in my debates all the time. I’ll start arguing a point, backed by facts, and the person who continues to enage in the argument is totally ill-equipped and/or is spouting out things that just aren’t true.
Anyways, great post.
What I’ve found is that facts are one thing. Interpretation of the facts is another.
Likewise, “facts” can be anything but. Quoting a poll or citing statistics, for example, is tricky. Perhaps the poll was poorly conducted (wrong questions, not random enough of a sample, etc.). Even facts are debatable sometimes.
But yeah. Debates, especially on issue that are emotional can be difficult to manage.
Great tips! and I laughed about the twitter-specific rules, even though I don’t twitter.
I keep most of them in mind already, but I always like picking up new ideas.
I thoroughly enjoy a debate and agree that respectful, yet passionate sparring is usually both exhilarating and educational whether I win or lose. It’s not about winning or losing, in my estimation, but keeping a dialogue open and learning from each other.
Sometimes my best lessons are from the debates I lose.
About the emotionality…you lose credibility when you strike from an emotional place. So, when I debate online in certain places, I aim to be very objective about it. If something strikes me emotionally, I examine why it triggered that response before I respond, just like @mckra1g said upstream.
Occasionally get into unwanted debates with people on my own blog who criticize something I say (and I’m not even a very controversial blogger), rather than deleting noisome comments, I discuss them openly and invite further debate from the um – well hecklers, I suppose I’d call them – which are blessedly few.
Sometimes they need to be dealt with as cleanly and as swiftly as possible, while trying (operative word TRYING) to be humane about it. I usually pull out “Da Rules” for first time offenders which includes a portion of Steve Pavlina’s Free Speech in Online Communities: The Delusion of Entitlement guidelines, which I’ve borrowed from and put on my about page.
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2009/09/free-speech-in-online-communities-the-delusion-of-entitlement/
“If you’re going to come into my private online home and behave like a jerk in my presence, I will show you the door every time. And after you’re gone, I’ll return to my other guests and refill the snack bowls…
Do you have to become my close personal friend or agree with everything I say to participate in my website’s online community? Heck no, I’m not that strict. But if you pay me a visit online or offline, I do require that you treat me…with basic courtesy, politeness, and respect. Treat me online as you would if you were a guest in my home. Just as I open my website to others, I often open my home to a variety of guests as well. I love hanging out with many different kinds of people, as long as they behave with a modicum of human decency.
~ Steve Pavlina”
I’ve had to pull that out a couple of times, as respectfully as I could of course.
Multiple offenders or excessively critical people get openly mocked in a blog post. Then I feel better. Then I apologize for being petty. Then life goes on and people think twice about being a heckler on my blog for the fun of it. Works great!
Warning: My twitter rules are not real. I was kidding around with Bear. Don’t take them to heart. 😉
Enjoyed your post thoroughly. Your rules are well reasoned, ahh if we only all played the same game.
well said. I really enjoyed this. you have a lot of good points – I only wish that everyone who loves to debate, and has the intellectual depth for such, could grasp the respect aspect of it.
cheers!
Excellent. Sad to say, the logic behind our support for virtually every issue is exactly the same as that behind our support for this or that sports team.
My favorite team is the best in the world.
Even when it sucks.
😉
Interesting post! I’ve enjoyed healthy debate for most of my life and I like seeing how clearly you’ve outlined guidelines similar to how I feel (although more eloquently, I must admit).
My only additional thought would be on the importance of quality listening during a debate. It’s hard to have a good, healthy debate when all one is thinking about is their next point.
Excellent point. More listening, less talking. Even I forgot to include that in the list. Thank you for reminding me.
🙂
“Unless you live in a theocracy, morality and religion are subjective arguments, not objective arguments. Subjective arguments, while fascinating in certain social situations, have no place in reasonable debate.” – This is nothing less than making your position true by definition, and then trying to cover up the fact by stating it in a long drawn out way, and throwing the word “reasonable” in there. You’re “Update” does nothing to change the fact.
I’m sorry. I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Can you clarify? Give me an example.
Good post. Sadly, I have been a bad debater but hope that by remembering your points, I can get better. It is something, I hope, some of our public leaders learn as well.
Nah. You’re probably fine. 🙂
Thanks for another articulate and important post, Olivier. Rational discourse can often be hard to come by, especially online, and a concise set of coherent guidelines is a must for anyone involved in debate.
I have two comments that I would add beyond the thoughtful ideas already posted…
The first is what I would deem a critical element of any debate: the ability to admit you are wrong (your point #10). I recall a wonderful article I read on this topic by Bob Sutton: Strong opinions, weakly held (See http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/strong_opinions.html). We must all be willing to admit that we are wrong in the face of evidence to the contrary.
The second is the temporal nature of debate online. Depending on the channel in which a debate is viewed, people may or may not see the entire debate (or have the patience to read it). As a result, I think this often leads debaters towards the emotional dark side, trying to score visible points (sound bites) outside the larger context of the debate. In the online world of short-attention-span theater, emotional barbs that are seen often trump rational threads that are not.
Your second point is right on the money. The first too, but the second is more important, I think. More astute as well.
🙂
These are very sound guidelines for debating and discussing topics (except for the touchy ones). I wish more and more people would have good discussions and debates, because typically these usually yield many practical solutions to real problems facing both in the debate.
I do have a question about where “gut-feel” would fit into the debate. Maybe you may not have all the facts or POV, but you have a git feel based on personal experiences and acquired knowledge and wisdom. I know this may not be the best foundation for the your side of the debate, but how and what is the best way to to present this POV?
Interesting post and interesting comments! Congrats on being FP.
I don’t debate much in general, but last election time I got all riled up and spent some time (okay, a lot of time) on Facebook boards. I found it both enlightening and frustrating, and I noticed a few things before I got burnt out from the vitriol:
1. Most people would benefit to follow your rules, especially #4, 5, 7 and 8.
2. It is unlikely to change anyone’s mind in such a situation, as politics are a strange creature.
3. It is possible to make friends through such boards.
As to rule #3 and the context addendum, I agree wholeheartedly that it is impossible to separate oneself from one’s biases. This has been food for thought for me for a while, since it seems to me that people who adhere to any major philosophy, whether it be an organized religion or a more secular social construct (like feminism, or veganism, etc.) do so because they believe that it is the right way to live. And in choosing to do so, it can “negate” the rightness of other lifestyles.
So, if there is a passionate meat-eater debating with a passionate vegan, there is more of a bridge to cross in order to reach a respectful understanding point. In this way, morality on a large scale is always relative, but on a personal scale, is absolute. Non?
Again, great post. Thanks for sharing. 🙂
Also, with 2.1% fluency in Italian, what exactly does that enable you to say?
I guess the first step is to realize that being a vegetarian isn’t an excuse to be rude to the omnivore. My choices are my own. His choices are his own. We can discuss our reasons for choosing one diet over another: Health, philosophy, religion, tastes, etc. But in the end, is the point to convert the other? Will a liberal convince a conservative to jump ship over one debate? Will an agnostic convert a Christian?
Good debates begin with mutual respect and the acknowledgment of boundaries, I think.
Keith Privette
[…] I do have a question about where “gut-feel” would fit into the debate. Maybe you may not have all the facts or POV, but you have a git feel based on personal experiences and acquired knowledge and wisdom. I know this may not be the best foundation for the your side of the debate, but how and what is the best way to to present this POV?
I teach analytical writing at college, and my answer to this would be: “As a leadiin to facts and evidence.” Like analogies and anecdotes, this kind of thing can make your argument more real. But also like analogies and anecdotes, they are not support for your argument. Everybody has gut feelings.
Great post!
I’m glad I waited to read this. I like a good debate although I’m not good at it myself, so I’ll listen to (or read) it.
Trying to debate a point in a work environment is tricky. I find that, if all parties concerned are not open-minded, it can feel like you’re hitting your head against a wall. Asking questions is a great way to try and get your point across and it can be very effective.
I agree with the point about keeping (or at least try to) emotion out of a debate, especially if it is facts that are being debated. Emotions tend to interfere with objectivity. When I think of emotions entering a debate / reasoning I see a pool of murky water. It’s difficult to navigate and it may be better to state your point and get out.
The effectiveness of a debate really depends on the people involved and their reasons for entering into it in the first place, right?
Very good tips in this post! Thanks for writing it.
How right you are. Everybody now knows that it was emotion not reason that led America and Britain to wars in Iraq and Afganistan. The problem is some people give ‘if one hit you on the one side of face, offer him another’ kind of argument but keep a hatchet underneath their argument. What will you suggest for them?
Ha Ha Ha!…Now that you’ve laid down the rule of the play ground, let the fun begin!
Granted thick skin is a desirable trait… unless it goes down through the skull and then nothing gets through. I view cordiality as being equal to respect …If either is lost then both tend to be lost and one’s ground must be regained someway. Generally anger and bitterness fills the void when either is lost.
In regard to business, more flies are caught with honey than with vinegar. Conflict produces vinegar not honey.
Brand Management… Those that produce the best results have done so as in the service to others.
Crisis communication…As in a fight, it must be simple, directed, and to the point.
I could go on and on… But I believe that any of these subjects could be solved without conflict with the right attitude which is what I think that you are pointing to by remarking on the necessity for thick skin.
Just my “feelings” lol! on the subject. Great post, regretfully, I can’t concentrate on more than one subject at a time and give you a clear opinion though
Thanks. You make some good points. 🙂
Great post,
You’re clearly a persuasive person and a talented writer. I agree that debates are generally positive, intellectually stimulating affairs.
I do, however, believe that a debate must be a compliment to rather than a substitute for discussion. The inherently competitive and contrarian nature of debating is often more a struggle to prove a point for its own sake rather than a serious effort to enhance knowledge and understanding of the subject at hand. Nevertheless, a good debate has the potential to uncover interesting and novel perspectives on a particular subject.
Thank you for an interesting and true post. I believe that emotions too often get in the way in many different kinds of communication, not only debates.
Excellent post, you’ve covered an interesting topic of a diminishing art. Debate, real debate is devolving to argument and worse in America.
I think there are so many factors for this unfortunate decline: Television programs like Jerry Springer and Maury Povich–guests on the show require interventions of body guards before the first commercials. Social networking erodes at the ability to debate because the lack of face-to-face discussion.
Lack of face-to-face discussion removes the nuances of body language and voice tone that may help promote conversation and prevent misunderstanding.
There are many more contributing factors, all of which add to an underlying current which diminishes our ability to allow for debate. Thank you for the insightful article. Keep up the good work. Cheers.
Highly insightful post. Thank you. Adding (I hope) to Rick’s comment…
To state that morality and religion are inherently subjective and thus off-limits in the kind of debate you write about is to sneak in an un-proven assertion of a moral and religious absolute: i.e., holding as self-evident that such things are unknowable, un-fixed in the universe, and purely a matter of personal preference.
The fact that different moral/faith systems disagree about such absolutes does not ipso facto prove that they are unknowable, subjective and un-fixed.
Great post and great responses to the comments.
I think MsQueenly illustrates something I’d like to understand better. She confuses the vulgar meaning of rationalize with the philosophical meaning of the word, which creates a detour of many lines of text and you didn’t even realize that see had confused them. I experience this a lot in my debates online as well: I present an argument, it’s countered and we circle each other during a few comments until I realize my opponent has misunderstood me. Then I reiterate my statement in a new fashion and the debate continues, but only to realize they’ve misunderstood something else. Now this misunderstanding has nothing to do with them being stupid and I don’t think it’s because I’m bad at explaining things (it might be though). I think it’s because of lack of knowledge, or prejudice if you will.
I don’t know how you feel about the guy who didn’t understand your Twitter advice to be ironic, but I see it as proof that it’s hard to know what the other person knows and consequently understands.
People assume what they don’t know (prejudice), so if my statements are based on many other arguments, I can assume that they won’t know why my arguments are valid and they will argue against it and I have to try to figure out which argument – that forms the foundation of my statement – they are unaware of and inform them of it, or they will assume I do not have that argument. Which is a great pain to me, because it’s hard to get someone else to tell you what it is they don’t know (for obvious reasons) and it’s hard to at length and in detail account for everything I know about everything until I hit on the point they’ve missed out on.
As a consequence, my debates are filled with me asking questions about what they know, usually in the form of me asking them to explain their arguments so that I can see what they’re omitting and then me trying to be a detailed as possible to see which arguments they react to with the surprise of someone experiencing new ideas, although. This creates very long and exhausting debates with comparatively very little reward.
What am I doing wrong? What should I do instead?
In real life it’s easier to handle misunderstandings because you can interrupt each other and interpret each other’s body language.
One last thought. Something I try to do as much as possible in debates is to cite the other person (as I see you’ve done with some comments to this post) as soon as I see something I disagree with, shoving it in their faces for closer inspection in my sometimes futile hopes that my comments will make it obvious to them what’s wrong with their statement. I find that people often don’t return the favour, they instead disregard what I write ignoring my arguments and it’s frustrating to say the least. Not only are they not contributing to the debate, but they’re also unwilling to take something from it for their own benefit. Maybe that’s something to add to your list on how to debate.
enleuk.wordpress.com
welcome to our website(w w w Lttsy c o m)
The new update, a large hot ..
WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT.
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!
Even way back, when I was in high school (not ancient times, but close), debate had already become the academic province of non-tech geeks and pre-law majors. We’ve paid the price in polarized and poisoned public discourse at a time when the honest and reasoned search for truth has never been more essential.
We need more folks — many, many more folks — who are committed to moving classical argument out of the auditorium and back into the town square. How to accomplish this should be the subject of, well, debate. Thanks for adding your voice.
Great post! The general framework of your rules is incredible. You need to make a poster out of it.
“Keeping it Civil” (or something else more witty)
Here’s an alternative perspective. Debate is largely a zero sum outcome for everyone involved.
And the emotional investment in the debate can be a huge distraction from accomplishing amazing things.
Almost all “facts” are subjective. Time and perspective add value insight that can missing at the time of the debate.
Dan
p.s. As always, your thought provoking insight is brilliant.
Olivier, Loved reading this post and the comments were amazing. Not going to pretend I can rise to the level of debate here and your rules are why.
1) Whether it’s wine, DisneyWorld or LSU football, someone’s always gonna know more than I. So it goes.
2) Like many of the other comments here, I agree that tempered, respectful emotion and passion make for a better debate.
3) You’ve amended… have a comment at the end.
4)Respect the debate itself and argue the comment, the post, the blog.. not the commenter, the blogger, the writer. Too often such debates go past the discussion itself, move onto personal attacks on the debaters. Like 5) this also ends the debate IMO.
6) I know I need thicker skin, but everyone wants to be right, have their arguments supported and appreciated; human nature IMO. So the more passionately I support my side, the sharper the sting.
7) and 8) These rules are why I don’t debate and/or why I’m a less skilled debater: all too often the argument serves no purpose. You are arguing with someone who won’t follow the “rules,” is too biased in their own views, etc. As you said in one of your replies, it’s about the outcome of the debate. Is it just bloviating, politicians and pundits spewing self-serving sound bites.. or is there a point to it all? More often than not, the debate’s not worth my time and I can find better ways to slam my head against a wall.
9) Old school southerner, just don’t mix it up on religion, politics, sex. Keep it safe, talk about sports and the weather. So long as you know that MY team is the. best. ever! Geaux Tigers. 😉
10)Win or lose, graciousness. WORD.
On FACTS and OPINIONS: a lot of the comments–yours included–talked of facts vis a vis interpretation, about opinions vs. personal preferences, about passion and conviction.
I’ll close with this line from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” Yet aren’t the “facts” themselves often subject to opinion, to interpretation, to preferences that are inherently personal and biased? I don’t really have an answer, but I’ve enjoyed this post, debate. Merci.
At least even at places like this, they are being civilized to reach a just decision.
Olivier,
Thanks again for writing yet another post that requires me to sit in my thinking chair. 🙂
I don’t consider myself a skilled debater, so I try my best to listen first and tread carefully. That said, I’ve been labeled in the past as opinionated and outspoken, so my mouth can sometimes lead the way.
There’s two things I’ve learned in debating: 1) it’s not a weakness to admit you don’t know something, and 2) know when to let the argument go.
When pressed with a question about a point that I’ve made, admitting that I don’t know (enough or entirely) about the answer gives me pause to reflect, learn, and find out. I don’t try to cling to my perspective once I’ve been given a reason to consider other vantage points.
As for letting go, it’s been helpful to my sanity to know when to let the argument slide, especially when the disagreement is either petty or mincing over minute details.
Mike
Debates can be stimulating as the people most likely to be wrong are the most likely to strongly believe [or should that be ´feel´?] they’re right.
This was recently expounded by a recent “how facts backfire” Boston globe article.
Thing is conducting debates online can be fraught with problems. I always try to pause, defer, and rewrite any email that may be construed as critical and find the most successful way to avoid the “feelings” minefield is to eliminate the “you” and “me” references and, as you cogently argue Olivier, stick to the competing thesis, not the personalities who advocate them.
I wish more people felt how you feel about debating. People might actually learn something and actually become wiser, rather than just pretending that they are. Politics might actually become productive if politicians actually knew how to debate properly.
I agree with post #27 by minddisembodied.
You might have a look at the article at the address below. Lucid and lively. Good reading.
http://www.rzim.org/justthinkingfv/tabid/602/articleid/6632/cbmoduleid/881/default.aspx
I wish you all the best. Thus, above all, I wish you Truth!
You sir, are a truly experienced debater.
I really didn’t expect anyone to have touched all possible pitfalls of debates. I’d ask you about your religious beliefs, but I think I know what you think.
I’m not an atheist.
My beliefs are pretty simple to me, but explaining them would be a little complicated. Let’s just say I can hold more than one type of idea in my head at a time. 😉
So it will be entertaining to have a debate, observing the rules you mentioned in this post!
Drop by if you’re up for it!