Too much arguing and debating; not enough discussing

[Shemsu Hov]

What do you guys think of this statement? I read about it in some random article a few months back but after looking through the forums the thought came back to my mind.

I can't find the article but the gist of it is that we spend far to little time discussing and spend more time arguing and achieving nothing with debating. The article's writer basically tries to discuss matters in the most efficient way. Now this got me thinking: How would things be different if admitting you were wrong didn't mean your social standing gets burned at the stake? What if people who are proven wrong accept it and actually accept criticism and other points of views?

I personally feel that our current style of discussion and debating is very primitive and ineffective. People don't discuss and debate to prove a point, they do it to protect their pride. Even if it means standing strong in the face of evidence and going "You mean nothing, Evidence!"

[Deleted]

What do you guys think of this statement? I read about it in some random article a few months back but after looking through the forums the thought came back to my mind.

I can't find the article but the gist of it is that we spend far to little time discussing and spend more time arguing and achieving nothing with debating. The article's writer basically tries to discuss matters in the most efficient way. Now this got me thinking: How would things be different if admitting you were wrong didn't mean your social standing gets burned at the stake? What if people who are proven wrong accept it and actually accept criticism and other points of views?

I personally feel that our current style of discussion and debating is very primitive and ineffective. People don't discuss and debate to prove a point, they do it to protect their pride. Even if it means standing strong in the face of evidence and going "You mean nothing, Evidence!"

I'm not entirely sure a well reasoned and adult debate is really possible over the internet. You need people face to face to have a deep and meaningful discussion. There's so much more to communication than words on a screen. You need to see faces, to read body language etc. It's so much more complicated than any forum is able to facilitate.

[Shemsu Hov]

I'm not entirely sure a well reasoned and adult debate is really possible over the internet. You need people face to face to have a deep and meaningful discussion. There's so much more to communication than words on a screen. You need to see faces, to read body language etc. It's so much more complicated than any forum is able to facilitate.

True enough, but I am referring to real life as well. I've never seen a Republican vs. Democrat debate but the way people talk about US politics I can see a debate on what color the cancer treatment pill should be turning into a giant blame game with accusations going back to 10,000 BC. I just feel people are too quick to feel superior in an argument and take jabs at the other person. In every online discussion I've seen there's always two sides: the I'm right you're wrong group and the I'm right your wrong group(2).

[Hraklea]

I think you couldn't be more right, but I don't think that's exclusive to internet debates. Most people have serious problem accepting that, in some themes, both sides can be partially right.

[chrisberb]

I think the main problem is that some-how facts have become debatable.

[Shemsu Hov]

That's something I've been waiting to mention is the lack of ability to compromise. It's all or nothing, even if both sides are partially right. And yes it is a huge problem that people have come to believe that facts can be debated. Humans in general seem to build a fortress of opinion and think it's made of pure hard facts.

[Samesnotatroll]

I think the main problem is that some-how facts have become debatable.

So much this. Everyone is an expert and or a critic.

[chrisberb]

So much this. Everyone is an expert and or a critic.

Or the new thing is to start a sentence off with "i'm not a *insert some type of expert on something*", and to then say something that you'd want to hear from an expert.
example: "I'm not a doctor, but Ebola is most likely airborne!"

[Shemsu Hov]

I don't think that anyone can disagree that we argue and debate, though I'm even more curious to see what kind of counter argument someone can come up with.

What do you guys think MMO Champion could do to become a better place of discussion? Keep in mind that there's no silver bullet solution to poor online personalities but we can still think about it a bit. Also keep in mind I'm just trying to get ideas flowing and I don't expect people to conform to be the perfect debater.

[Aucald]

The dialectic is dead - long live the dialectic. Humor aside we live in a society where rightness is generally valued over truth, message is more important than content, and fact has become a commodity that can mutated, rewritten, or simple made-up whole cloth to support any platform one desires. The Internet is simply a microcosm of the above where the necessity of having your name and face attached to your opinion is missing - freeing people to do their absolute worst with anything and everything they can to support their personal agendas.

[Shemsu Hov]

Or the new thing is to start a sentence off with "i'm not a *insert some type of expert on something*", and to then say something that you'd want to hear from an expert.
example: "I'm not a doctor, but Ebola is most likely airborne!"

Thought I'm sure some take it to extremes I view statements like that as just a way of stating your opinion without everyone calling you a retard.

I'm no health expert but I think your diet of rotten fruit is bad for you.

Using something like that is very subjective but it really feels like a scapegoat for when your opinion is wrong.

Another example would be something like I'm no pilot but I don't think you will land this plane with only one wing. And when the pilot does, you will go "Well like I said; I'm not a pilot."

[openair]

How would things be different if admitting you were wrong didn't mean your social standing gets burned at the stake? What if people who are proven wrong accept it and actually accept criticism and other points of views?

I personally feel that our current style of discussion and debating is very primitive and ineffective. People don't discuss and debate to prove a point, they do it to protect their pride. Even if it means standing strong in the face of evidence and going "You mean nothing, Evidence!"

I think you're generalizing too much. Sure this forum and others like it, many people and even politicians to a degree do fit this generalization to a point but there are large areas of society that do accept evidence, criticism and other points of view. They're the doctors, engineers and other scientists leading our technological advancement.

Global Warming is a good example of this. Many people, especially politicians, spent a lot of time debating if human Co2 emissions were primarily or secondarily responsible for global warming. While in reality the difference is close to moot. Cutting human emissions would reduce the impact of global warming in either case and many now accept the evidence those scientists have spent their time collecting instead of arguing.

"Cows produce more Co2 than ...." I wonder why there are so many cows? Oh yea, we breed, heard and harvest them so we can eat!

[belfpala]

I guess it depends. If we're debating whether Pulp Fiction or The Shawshank Redemption was the best movie released in 1994, debate on. There's no objective way to measure that.

If we're talking about something that has an objective measure, debate has no place.

[Shemsu Hov]

I think you're generalizing too much. Sure this forum and others like it, many people and even politicians to a degree do fit this generalization to a point but there are large areas of society that do accept evidence, criticism and other points of view. They're the doctors, engineers and other scientists leading our technological advancement.

Global Warming is a good example of this. Many people, especially politicians, spent a lot of time debating if human Co2 emissions were primarily or secondarily responsible for global warming. While in reality the difference is close to moot. Cutting human emissions would reduce the impact of global warming in either case and many now accept the evidence those scientists have spent their time collecting instead of arguing.

"Cows produce more Co2 than ...." I wonder why there are so many cows? Oh yea, we breed, heard and harvest them so we can eat!

True, I just wish the average citizen would think more like a scientist and less like a politician.

[Nachturnal]

I think the main problem is that some-how facts have become debatable.

Well the thread ended quickly. Thank you human.

[Shemsu Hov]

I guess it depends. If we're debating whether Pulp Fiction or The Shawshank Redemption was the best movie released in 1994, debate on. There's no objective way to measure that.

If we're talking about something that has an objective measure, debate has no place.

Discussion, debate, argument, they all have their own time and place but I find that far to often a discussion turns into a debate or argument.

[Theinquisition]

Well, it what really comes down to, at least here on MMOC-OT is a "us vs them" mentallity. It's okay for my side to do anything they want, as long as the other side is either hamstringed, or discredited.

Both sides engage in this type of behavior, as for who does it more, it just depends on who the majority of the posters are on any given topic.

It's discouraging really, when we can't even meet halfway to discuss an issue, and eventually I believe that this type of behaviour will be our undoing.

[Deleted]

Discussing on the internet and in real life, is godawful, it's not about the facts it's about the person uttering the facts and the gains are just for someone personal not in the anyone elses advantage.

[Baconeggcheese]

I'm not entirely sure a well reasoned and adult debate is really possible over the internet. You need people face to face to have a deep and meaningful discussion. There's so much more to communication than words on a screen. You need to see faces, to read body language etc. It's so much more complicated than any forum is able to facilitate.

I've read the equivalent of this a ton and I typically thought of it that way, but the more time I spend arguing etc with people on the internet the more I see the exact same behavior IRL.

The only thing I'd say is more exclusive to the internet is that you can't prevent people from getting full thoughts out or how many people are included in the conversation.

~That asshole who cuts you off every time you try to make a point irl? He's the guy on the forum only reading the first two sentences of your post, effectively showing the same behavior but not actually stopping you from typing out the rest of your thought.

~30 people all posting on a forum, all 30 people post. 30 people in a discussion / debate / argument? One person talks at a time, many thoughts never have an opportunity to be voiced or addressed, many people get cut off mid thought and never get their full arguments out etc etc.

For me I find a "well reasoned and adult debate" isn't really possible with most people in general, you'll find it as often IRL as you do in real life.

and I'd say the reason it is so rare is somewhere in the realm of what the OP is getting at, people have been trained to act certain ways which has seemed to get worse as the years go by.

I think the main problem is that some-how facts have become debatable.

It's sad cause it's true.