I strongly think it’s because people can grow up trained to tie their identity to their beliefs and values. Self reflection becomes a direct attack on their identity.
Isn’t that literally the point of debate though?
Like it’s not just a discussion, it’s about arguing your case the best? That’s how I’ve understood it anyway
A distinction that sometimes gets lost is that winning a debate doesn’t mean being right. I had a friend who did debate and quite often she had to argue in favour of things she was vehemently against, and won doing so. I wish I could remember examples, but there were a couple of things where she actually thought it was easier to argue what she felt were the wrong positions, because there were more rhetorical angles she could take, whereas arguing the side she actually believed would be more reliant on things that she felt were self-evident.
Formalized debate, yes, but a lot of people go into all discussions like that to the point I’d say it’s poisoning our culture. The goal should be a collective arrival at a place closer to truth than either began at.
I’d say that determining truth - or the closest we can get to it - is the point of debate. In a perfect world, both parties would be pleased to reach the same conclusion by the end, no matter whose original case was right.
Too many people think arbitrary lines in the sand on random topics before science has any means to catch up is a debate vs a discussion. The lens at which you’re looking at it through is one of the most important topics to start off with. The ‘debate’ which follows hinges almost exclusively on finding/arguing for the semantics of your definition.
I’ve had one too many ‘debates’ about whether true AI has a ‘soul’ when people can barely tell me how they define Artificial Intelligence (generalized now bleugh) succinctly.
The more recent one was whether humans have ‘free will’. Meanwhile every three paragraphs or so the other guy was dropping nonsensical memes with figurative ‘gotchas’ while two of us were sharing constantly lol.
After all the fun tangents from natural discussion the gotcha guy started to get a chip on the shoulder like so many of the types do. I had to flat out ask him how he even defined free will and he couldn’t even give me a clear answer lol. I started talking about semantics and he dropped the ‘you know arguing semantics isn’t a bad thing right?’
Like yeah dude… That’s nearly half the reason we make new words to better define things. It’s literally arguing semantics, that’s what half of debate is at it’s essence. People arguing positions wildly ‘different’ from the other person because they refused to believe this WORD/IDEA includes these definitions.
You then get to the point of ‘debate’ when you inarguably come to a line in the sand that becomes yes/no on opposite sides. Walk away knowing that’s why they believe what they believe because that’s the root of their definition.
Then you hopefully wait for science to catch up… or just arbitrarily declare you win!.. then get angry because everyone else isn’t as mad about it as you were so now you gotta pretend like you didn’t have a chip on your shoulder the whole time because you equate being right with your worth rather than being right for the sake of being right or trying to understand someone deeper.
Wait … that’s not normal?
An unfortunate number of people view debates as “winning” vs “losing” and tie their ego to it.
I love debating, and especially love it when I get the chance to be wrong and learn from my mistakes. Man, I really am a weirdo.
I strongly think it’s because people can grow up trained to tie their identity to their beliefs and values. Self reflection becomes a direct attack on their identity.
Isn’t that literally the point of debate though? Like it’s not just a discussion, it’s about arguing your case the best? That’s how I’ve understood it anyway
A distinction that sometimes gets lost is that winning a debate doesn’t mean being right. I had a friend who did debate and quite often she had to argue in favour of things she was vehemently against, and won doing so. I wish I could remember examples, but there were a couple of things where she actually thought it was easier to argue what she felt were the wrong positions, because there were more rhetorical angles she could take, whereas arguing the side she actually believed would be more reliant on things that she felt were self-evident.
Formalized debate, yes, but a lot of people go into all discussions like that to the point I’d say it’s poisoning our culture. The goal should be a collective arrival at a place closer to truth than either began at.
I’d say that determining truth - or the closest we can get to it - is the point of debate. In a perfect world, both parties would be pleased to reach the same conclusion by the end, no matter whose original case was right.
Ew
Too many people think arbitrary lines in the sand on random topics before science has any means to catch up is a debate vs a discussion. The lens at which you’re looking at it through is one of the most important topics to start off with. The ‘debate’ which follows hinges almost exclusively on finding/arguing for the semantics of your definition.
I’ve had one too many ‘debates’ about whether true AI has a ‘soul’ when people can barely tell me how they define Artificial Intelligence (generalized now bleugh) succinctly.
The more recent one was whether humans have ‘free will’. Meanwhile every three paragraphs or so the other guy was dropping nonsensical memes with figurative ‘gotchas’ while two of us were sharing constantly lol.
After all the fun tangents from natural discussion the gotcha guy started to get a chip on the shoulder like so many of the types do. I had to flat out ask him how he even defined free will and he couldn’t even give me a clear answer lol. I started talking about semantics and he dropped the ‘you know arguing semantics isn’t a bad thing right?’
Like yeah dude… That’s nearly half the reason we make new words to better define things. It’s literally arguing semantics, that’s what half of debate is at it’s essence. People arguing positions wildly ‘different’ from the other person because they refused to believe this WORD/IDEA includes these definitions.
You then get to the point of ‘debate’ when you inarguably come to a line in the sand that becomes yes/no on opposite sides. Walk away knowing that’s why they believe what they believe because that’s the root of their definition.
Then you hopefully wait for science to catch up… or just arbitrarily declare you win!.. then get angry because everyone else isn’t as mad about it as you were so now you gotta pretend like you didn’t have a chip on your shoulder the whole time because you equate being right with your worth rather than being right for the sake of being right or trying to understand someone deeper.
You win, but I’m not mad.