Honest Debate

[Some Schmo]

I've been thinking about the general topic of debate, argumentation and rhetoric lately, and it occurs to me that I regard a debate like sex. It can only be a fruitful experience if both parties trust and care about each other. If they don't, it's just going to be a lot of violent banging, nothing good can come of it, and both parties are likely to walk away with shame and regret.

I'm somewhat convinced a serious debate is impossible on a message board, and regard the pursuit as wasted time and mental energy, mostly because we fundamentally don't know each other. Not really. The interesting thing is that I think I've learned a significant amount about debate and rhetoric by observing what's gone on here over the years. I'm not critical of attempting an argument; that is for certain. However, I am suspicious of the notion that I may be able to actively convince anyone of anything.

Maybe what I'm saying is that I think people are more persuasive when they aren't trying to be. Or maybe I'm saying that people are more persuasive when you trust them and their intentions. Maybe most of the persuasion is subconscious, being influenced by someone's example.

So, that's why I don't debate people here. I feel free to simply state what I think and let the chips fall where they may.

I'm not suggesting anyone not to try an argument, though. A ton of great arguments have been made by the board's members. Everyone has their own reasons for using this message board. Mine are just to use it as a place to jot down my current thoughts on the things people are talking about here. Lately, I've been enjoying more reading than writing.

[Res Ipsa]

Great post, Schmo, and I love the metaphor.

I agree that trust is foundational to persuasion. I think there are some understandings that, if accepted, can create the conditions for a productive online debate. But if the trust isn't there, I doubt they would work.

[Some Schmo]

Great post, Schmo, and I love the metaphor.

I agree that trust is foundational to persuasion. I think there are some understandings that, if accepted, can create the conditions for a productive online debate. But if the trust isn't there, I doubt they would work.

Thanks RI.

I'm trying to imagine an online forum of some kind that might achieve productive online debate. Perhaps it would have to be a paid subscription where you are essentially joining an online debate club, where the rules of engagement are plainly stated and enforced and violations result in suspensions. At the same time, the culture of the club (minus Boy George) would have to foster a tight community of people who are more focused on good faith debate and resolving questions than winning arguments. They'd have to have a non-debate forum for community building to foster familiarity and trust, which members would need to spend time in before they get to participate in club debates.

Perhaps something like that could work, and it might be a lot of fun. It's success, however, would depend on the closeness of the club's community, I think.

[ceeboo]

I've been thinking about the general topic of debate, argumentation and rhetoric lately, and it occurs to me that I regard a debate like sex. It can only be a fruitful experience if both parties trust and care about each other. If they don't, it's just going to be a lot of violent banging, nothing good can come of it, and both parties are likely to walk away with shame and regret.

So that's why Mrs. Ceeboo always walks away with shame and regret.

I'm somewhat convinced a serious debate is impossible on a message board,

Due to obvious limitations of message boards, a serious debate is difficult. A serious debate about politics on a message board is damn near impossible.

Maybe what I'm saying is that I think people are more persuasive when they aren't trying to be. Or maybe I'm saying that people are more persuasive when you trust them and their intentions. Maybe most of the persuasion is subconscious, being influenced by someone's example.

I think, generally speaking, this common saying is very true: Human beings really don't care what you know, unless and until they know how much you care.

A ton of great arguments have been made by the board's members.

Can you give a few examples? (I am seriously asking)

[drumdude]

I prefer to have discussions. Debate implies one has an inflexible ideology that they have to defend or advance.

Most of us discuss Mormonism without having to debate it. And those conversations are great.

[ceeboo]

I prefer to have discussions. Debate implies one has an inflexible ideology that they have to defend or advance.

Most of us discuss Mormonism without having to debate it. And those conversations are great.

I think there might be a reason that your conversations about Mormonism are great - the great majority of you are ex-Mormons. A common experience unites and you all are on the same page about the LDS church. If you added 15 -20 BIC devout Mormons to the mix, I think things might change and debate might enter the cosmos.

[drumdude]

I prefer to have discussions. Debate implies one has an inflexible ideology that they have to defend or advance.

Most of us discuss Mormonism without having to debate it. And those conversations are great.

I think there might be a reason that your conversations about Mormonism are great - the great majority of you are ex-Mormons. A common experience unites and you all are on the same page about the LDS church. If you added 15 -20 BIC devout Mormons to the mix, I think things might change and debate might enter the cosmos.

I think I'm one of the few who can still stand talking to MG2.0 I honestly wish we had more devout Mormons here, but it's hard to find a TBM who isn't programmed to run at the first sign of criticism.

[ceeboo]

I think there might be a reason that your conversations about Mormonism are great - the great majority of you are ex-Mormons. A common experience unites and you all are on the same page about the LDS church. If you added 15 -20 BIC devout Mormons to the mix, I think things might change and debate might enter the cosmos.

I think I'm one of the few who can still stand talking to MG2.0

Ha!

I guess you can bring the official total to two, because I enjoyed reading his perspectives. Plus, I admired his willingness to play games from the visitors' dugout. Not super easy to do.

it's hard to find a TBM who isn't programmed to run at the first sign of criticism

Yeah, just like it's hard to find politically conservative folks who aren't programmed to run at the first sign of criticism.

[yellowstone123]

I think there might be a reason that your conversations about Mormonism are great - the great majority of you are ex-Mormons. A common experience unites and you all are on the same page about the LDS church. If you added 15 -20 BIC devout Mormons to the mix, I think things might change and debate might enter the cosmos.

I think I'm one of the few who can still stand talking to MG2.0 I honestly wish we had more devout Mormons here, but it's hard to find a TBM who isn't programmed to run at the first sign of criticism.

He's great when he shows. It takes a willingness to take a few stripes. It seems to me that his 2.0 is a new and improved person. I believe he had a lot of introspection where he felt, maybe he was in the wrong. That's a tough thing to do. I do it at times because I'm wrong so many times. I hope he comes back with his thoughts.

[Res Ipsa]

Great post, Schmo, and I love the metaphor.

I agree that trust is foundational to persuasion. I think there are some understandings that, if accepted, can create the conditions for a productive online debate. But if the trust isn't there, I doubt they would work.

Thanks RI.

I'm trying to imagine an online forum of some kind that might achieve productive online debate. Perhaps it would have to be a paid subscription where you are essentially joining an online debate club, where the rules of engagement are plainly stated and enforced and violations result in suspensions. At the same time, the culture of the club (minus Boy George) would have to foster a tight community of people who are more focused on good faith debate and resolving questions than winning arguments. They'd have to have a non-debate forum for community building to foster familiarity and trust, which members would need to spend time in before they get to participate in club debates.

Perhaps something like that could work, and it might be a lot of fun. It's success, however, would depend on the closeness of the club's community, I think.

I think what you describe would work, even if the participants shared just the goal of exchanging and critiquing ideas.

It could be done here, more easily in a subforum restricted to participants set in advance until after the debate has ended. After that, all could join in to discuss the issues raised in the debate.

Something that I’ve read about called a “Good Faith Agreement” could potentially compensate for some of the problems you’ve raised about productive debates in forums like this one. A good faith agreement is not just a promise to act in good faith. It is an agreement to assume that the other participants are acting in good faith. Each agrees to give the other the benefit of the doubt. That removes the ever present accusations of “bad faith” that ruin attempts to debate ideas in wide open forums.

So, if you and I were to debate and you state a fact wrong, it’s a mistake. Full stop. If I make an argument that you think is deceptive or fallacious, it’s a bad or invalid argument. Full stop.

I think there are combinations of folks here that could carry out a good faith debate if they chose to do so. The specific problem with this forum is that the typical “debate” between LDS folks is the exact opposite of a good faith agreement. The assumption seems to be that the person or persons on the other side of the debate are acting in bad faith. Both sides focus on catching the other in a bad faith argument and then calling the other side out.

Anyway, that’s my spitballing on the topic.