Discussion Versus Debate

#12
David, thank you for reading ... And for the very kind words. Cheers! Reply

#10
@Dale Masters, thank you for reading, and for the kind words. Just today someone private messaged me with the following truly delightful comment: "I heard that Death had a near-Phil experience." It made me feel as though I am beginning to hit my stride. Seriously though, what I've found in more than a decade on social media is that most of the critics are actually criticizing or arguing against what we call in formal logic a "straw man". That is they either don't read carefully or don't understand what you actually are saying, and so take exception to something far removed. If you're careful to draw that to their attention, they usually stomp themselves through the floor like Rumpelstiltskin. Cheers! Reply

#6
@John Valledor - thank you for reading and commenting. However, I'd point out that often debated DO NOT use logic, but rather emotion; and they seek not so much to prove the truth of a proposition or thesis, but to persuade the audience that they are correct. And they will use all manner of devices and manipulations. One of the primary tools is an Appeal to Authority. In such appeals, someone well known or influential is quoted. Which, of course, matters not to the question of truth. Cheers! Reply

#5
Thank you, @Don Kerr, for reading and commenting so eloquently. I do believe you get the point.Just as some take even civil disagreement as a personal affront, there are others who seem to believe that they can make any sort of comment they want, and not be challenged on it. We even have people saying, "Here is what I have to say, but don't you dare to disagree, or if you do, don't you dare express that disagreement." When I was a teenager (sometime before the invention of the telephone) we used to play a game at parties. Yea, this one was pretty mild. One person would start by stating a declaratory sentence. Then in turn everyone else was required to say something that had absolutely no connection to, or bearing on the sentence stated prior. Don't scoff, it's actually harder than you think. For example, someone might start with "George Washington was the first president of the United States." If the next person said anything about, say, chopping down a cherry tree or not lying, that person was out. But if the next person said, say, "Mahummed Ali was the best heavyweight boxer of all time", that was good, and the game went to the next person. Then the third person, in order to stay in the game, would have to say something like, "The rain in Spain is mainly on the Plain." And so on and so forth. (Again, try it with your wife or kids or some friends. If you make the game move quickly, trust me, it isn't that easy, and you'll get tripped up more than you think.) And yes, I do know that sounds a lot like Donald Trumps speeches. Cont... Pt II... Reply

@Don Kerr - Part II... But seriously, we do seem to have a lot of people doing that these days on beBee. And if one of these people makes a blatantly irrelevant remark on an author's post, and the author points out it's irrelevancy or argues for a clarification, the author is roundly accused of being contrary, aggressive, adversarial, or whatever. Just as ad hominem attack is a form of bullying, I submit that playing the poor, sensitive, aggrieved party in an intellectual exchange is also a form of bullying -- and a blatant ttempt to shut off genuine discussion and intellectual exchange. I agree with you that beBee is at a cross-road, and can either go the way of Facebook and its often mindless emotive exhibitionism and emotional voyeurism... or it can develop an ethos of genuine engagement, discussion, and exchange. Thank you for reading and commenting. And for speaking out on this critical topic. Cheers, my friend! Reply

Where I draw the line is here: debate has about it the requirement for winning or losing; conversation has about it the benefit of knowledge gained and perspectives broadened. I am saddened by the increasingly present notions of losing and winning in some of the beBee exchanges. Curiously (or perhaps not) they often feature the same few who appear motivated solely by some perverse need to build themselves up while disavowing any value in real conversation. beBee will unavoidably attract more of these narcissistic pests as it continues to grow but that is what they are - pests of little real substance and in most case sad, empty and impotent little people. While I haven't yet discovered a way to totally block my encounters with these pesky insects, I have been able to clear my mind of any requirement to respond to their bait. However, when someone knowingly and with premeditation publishes outright falsehoods about my brothers and sisters on this platform I will not sit idly by. It is my hope however that we can continue civil and productive exchanges here without falling prey to either vicious commentary or la-dee-dah shallow responses that avoid the key issue of showing mutual respect for the whole person who agrees to share with this audience. As my friend Jim Murray - we've got your six! Reply

#2
Rick Delmonico - thank you for reading and commenting. I submit that while subjectivity has of needs to intrude, just as it is impossible not to have a POV in making even empirical observations, we should not conclude from that fact that all belief is equally subjective. I personally also try never to mistake inscrutability for depth when it comes to expression of thought. Cheers! Reply

#1
David Grinberg -thank you for reading and commenting, and for the kind words. You and I agree concerning the conduct of conversation on social media. I, however, believe strongly that the words we use to describe it make a lot of difference, for while the language we use models to a large extent the way we think, in the obverse, the way we speak influences the way we think. Hence, my emphasis on drawing the distinction between argument and debate. Cheers! Reply

Thanks for sharing more of your always astute and interesting insights, Phil Friedman. My perspective is that it's essential to have an open online dialogue on social media in which all views are expressed in a constructive and cordial manner. Call it debate, argument, or whatever, but the bottom line is keep it professional and courteous. Thoughts? Reply