[ExI] true debate

[William Flynn Wallace]

In traditional debate, as taught in schools, though maybe not so much
anymore, debaters would gain no points from the judges and few from the
audience if they presented only one side of the argument.  The tradition is
to present your side and refute the other, thus acknowledging that there is
another side.

Yet what we have today in the media is mostly one-sided.  In social psych,
we know that one-sided arguments convince very few, and only those who are
mostly unaware of the other side.  And maybe you have noticed that emotions
tend to run high in public media, Congress, etc.  It is said that the
Republicans don't just dislike Obama and his policies, they hate him and
them.  Compromise involves the two-sided arguments and our congressmen
repudiate them, likening them to giving in and being untrue to one's
principles.  Perhaps they just don't want to confuse their constituents,
whom they regard as uninformed and unintelligent.

One of my posts was stopped because Spike thought that it would cause flame
wars (on socialism).  He also told me that socialists were not well liked.
What has liking or even respect got to do with a political position?  Or
people who hold it?  Once emotions get high rationality goes out the
window, people get defensive and strike back.  (In any case, I am
moderately left wing and libertarian - no socialist here).

Unless I miss my best guess, the people in this group are of high
intelligence and education, who would be highly insulted if presented with
a one-sided argument, as if they were unaware of both sides.  And likely
equally insulted if yelled at and called names.  (Is extreme right wing an
insult?  Samantha thought so.).  Negative
emotions have no role in debate.

Unsupported opinions are equally out of bounds to the intellectual elite.
Show me the data, right?

The posts on the chat group are far better than seen in the media, and yet
some of the problems mentioned above are present.  I'd like to see true
debates, acknowledging the points of the other side and refuting them.  If
you are socialist, then how is your system going to make money?  What about
the free rider problem?  How do you explain the failures of countries that
went whole hog on it?  If you are capitalist, how do you treat those who
cannot contribute much - widow and orphans, the disabled, the aged?  We
must avoid Social Darwinism on one side and autocratic socialism on the
other.

I don't know if anyone will agree with me but I predict I'll find out!

wfw
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140528/b8405ef2/attachment.html>