Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

My understanding of debate is that it is a competition between two opponents. Each present their arguments to an audience, and the winner is the one who receives the most audience votes. So the most important skill for a debater is persuasiveness, not factual correctness, or truth, or even offering the best-reasoned argument. The 'winner' is the one who convinces most voters to support them. To influence the consensus by persuading and convincing the audience.

If my impression of debate is fair, and accurate, then such a practice is counter-productive to a philosophical investigation, which seeks out truth, if it can, and understanding too, also if it can. It is the opposite of debate, it seems to me.

Have I got this right, or am I just misunderstanding "debate"?

[value]

Philosophical debate is called dialectical reason. It is similar to regular debate but it lacks subjective elements such as emotional appeal.

Immanuel Kant wrote the following about it in his attempt to have dialectical reason omitted from philosophy:

These sophistical assertions of dialectic open, as it were, a battle-field, where that side obtains the victory which has been permitted to make the attack, and he is compelled to yield who has been unfortunately obliged to stand on the defensive. And hence, champions of ability, whether on the right or on the wrong side, are certain to carry away the crown of victory, if they only take care to have the right to make the last attack, and are not obliged to sustain another onset from their opponent. We can easily believe that this arena has been often trampled by the feet of combatants, that many victories have been obtained on both sides, but that the last victory, decisive of the affair between the contending parties, was won by him who fought for the right, only if his adversary was forbidden to continue the tourney. As impartial umpires, we must lay aside entirely the consideration whether the combatants are fighting for the right or for the wrong side, for the true or for the false, and allow the combat to be first decided. Perhaps, after they have wearied more than injured each other, they will discover the nothingness of their cause of quarrel and part good friends.

The dialectical doctrine will not relate to the unity of understanding in empirical conceptions, but to the unity of reason in pure ideas. The conditions of this doctrine are—inasmuch as it must, as a synthesis according to rules, be conformable to the understanding, and at the same time as the absolute unity of the synthesis, to the reason—that, if it is adequate to the unity of reason, it is too great for the understanding, if according with the understanding, it is too small for the reason. Hence arises a mutual opposition, which cannot be avoided, do what we will.

Different as are the significations in which the ancients used this term (dialectic) for a science or an art, we may safely infer, from their actual employment of it, that with them it was nothing else than a logic of illusion—a sophistical art for giving ignorance, nay, even intentional sophistries, the colouring of truth, in which the thoroughness of procedure which logic requires was imitated, and their topic employed to cloak the empty pretensions. Now it may be taken as a safe and useful warning, that general logic, considered as an organon, must always be a logic of illusion, that is, be dialectical, for, as it teaches us nothing whatever respecting the content of our cognitions, but merely the formal conditions of their accordance with the understanding, which do not relate to and are quite indifferent in respect of objects, any attempt to employ it as an instrument (organon) in order to extend and enlarge the range of our knowledge must end in mere prating; any one being able to maintain or oppose, with some appearance of truth, any single assertion whatever.

Such instruction is quite unbecoming the dignity of philosophy. For these reasons we have chosen to denominate this part of logic dialectic, in the sense of a critique of dialectical illusion, and we wish the term to be so understood in this place.

Source: Critique of Pure Reason (Second Part—TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC - III - Of the Division of General Logic into Analytic and Dialectic.)

[chewybrian]

I think there are two sides to using the tactics of debate to discuss philosophy, though the negative aspects of debate methods dwarf the positive in my mind.

The positive side is that there are rules which can be applied as needed. Below is a video noting the numerous logical fallacies trotted out by Trump in just a few minutes. He tries to get listeners to connect events which have no logical connection, encouraging his followers to conclude that he has 'proved' that their preconceptions and prejudices were on the mark.

If we had political debates which followed the same rules we might use in high school, then Trump would, ideally, be stopped early and often and the crowd would be told why what he just said had no support from reason or logic.

If we apply these types of rules in a philosophical debate, such as calling someone out for using a strawman or slippery slope argument, then they could help to steer us closer to reason, knowledge or wisdom.

The negative side is quite serious. In high school debates, we are usually assigned a 'side'. We are supposed to act like a lawyer who might presume his client is guilty, using all our skills to try to win for the side we've been told to represent, no matter what we really believe.

Kant, via Value, has a very good point. No matter whether the speaker believes his own position or not, he should be prohibited from using tactics that would tend to minimize the value of logic and reason (and even fact!). The very idea that we have chosen a side before the discussion is a roadblock to progress. We should all be on the same team if we declare we are engaging in philosophy. We should all be not just willing, but eager to see our preconceptions be disproved, because then we truly will have learned and become wiser.

The lawyers' mentality is appropriate to the courtroom, as we are all entitled to the best possible defense, just in case we really are innocent, such that justice is served as best it can be. It has no place in a discussion of philosophy, where there are no sides but only ideas and possible solutions to questions and problems. While a lawyer might withhold information that might tend to damage his client's position, the philosopher must take extra care to consider ant way in which his own position might be vulnerable. We aren't really 'doing' philosophy if we hold back or refuse to consider any idea that seems to lead us closer to the truth. Eloquence and determination (and insincerity) seem to have a place in politics or law, but they should not move the needle here.

[Lagayascienza]

I can't disagree with this. If we are serious philosophers, then surely it's not just about a quick win. I think it's about learning, with the ultimate goal being truth and wisdom. That's a lot different from what drives discourse in courtrooms and politics where a short, sharp adversarial approach is expected. The deep questions of philosophy may take centuries to sort out. This does not mean that philosophical discussion should not forcefully challenge conventional wisdom or preconceived ideas. I think it must do so. But philosophical issue are not resolved quickly. and so maybe the debate model is not best suited to Philosophy. Philosophy is hard thought, and needs to be written and read. Issues cannot be hashed out in a 45 minute televised political debate or in a two week trial where the goal is to stir up the masses or sway a jury. And even on a forum like this, it's all too easy to get into win-at-all-costs mode. But that doesn't work because philosophy goes deeper and takes longer than a few quick posts.

[Pattern-chaser]

From the replies so far, there is some agreement that I am on the right track in my doubts about debate. I wonder if anyone will post about the way debate contributes positively to philosophy? Maybe there is such a thing, although I cannot think of it?

[LuckyR]

From the replies so far, there is some agreement that I am on the right track in my doubts about debate. I wonder if anyone will post about the way debate contributes positively to philosophy? Maybe there is such a thing, although I cannot think of it?

Sort of depends on if you mean formal debate or the layperson use of the term.

Formal debate techniques are extremely unpersuasive to my ear. The density of material and the aggressive speed of the presentation are very off-putting to many, if not most of the general population.

OTOH jury presentations by lawyers are designed to be persuasive, yet can be light on the facts.

Ultimately the best presentation depends on the audience. Thus IMO assuming a higher calibre of critical thought and understanding of logic among the philosophy audience, is reasonable. At least that's what I assume.

[Pattern-chaser]

OTOH jury presentations by lawyers are designed to be persuasive, yet can be light on the facts.

The duty of the lawyer is to present the facts, such as they are, and the evidence, such as it is*, so that it shows their client in the most favourable light. A good lawyer is not a champion of Truth, they are only an expert in persuading others (the jury). And that is my objection to debate — debaters don't need or strive to be correct, they only need to be persuasive. They make no contribution that I can see to the search for knowledge and understanding.



* — even here, the lawyer only presents those of the facts and the evidence that best suits their purposes.

[JackDaydream]

My view is that debate in a philosophy, in an informal way, is worthwhile. That is because it allows for looking at all points of view and can generate new approaches. I began using philosophy forums for this reason. The only problem can be where it all gets a bit heavy handed in the form of insistent arguments. It is probably because philosophy debate is tricky and people may become attached to specific ideas. Also, the areas of philosophy, especially arising in relation to religion and politics are sensitive areas in human life. Nevertheless, I have found debate, including on this forum, helpful for critical.examination and do feel I have more clarity in my own thinking than I did several years ago as a result of dialogue with differing points of view.

[Pattern-chaser]

My view is that debate in a philosophy, in an informal way, is worthwhile. That is because it allows for looking at all points of view and can generate new approaches. I began using philosophy forums for this reason. The only problem can be where it all gets a bit heavy handed in the form of insistent arguments. It is probably because philosophy debate is tricky and people may become attached to specific ideas. Also, the areas of philosophy, especially arising in relation to religion and politics are sensitive areas in human life. Nevertheless, I have found debate, including on this forum, helpful for critical.examination and do feel I have more clarity in my own thinking than I did several years ago as a result of dialogue with differing points of view.

And the fact that a successful debater succeeds by virtue of their superior *persuasive* skills doesn't bother you at all?

[JackDaydream]

My view is that debate in a philosophy, in an informal way, is worthwhile. That is because it allows for looking at all points of view and can generate new approaches. I began using philosophy forums for this reason. The only problem can be where it all gets a bit heavy handed in the form of insistent arguments. It is probably because philosophy debate is tricky and people may become attached to specific ideas. Also, the areas of philosophy, especially arising in relation to religion and politics are sensitive areas in human life. Nevertheless, I have found debate, including on this forum, helpful for critical.examination and do feel I have more clarity in my own thinking than I did several years ago as a result of dialogue with differing points of view.

And the fact that a successful debater succeeds by virtue of their superior *persuasive* skills doesn't bother you at all?

The issue of persuasion is a complexity of life. It includes many aspects, including articulateness and emotional aspects. In public speech, including in politics, there are seductive aspects, including non verbal communication and even personal appearance. These are worth being aware of, but it doesn't rule out any usefulness of debate in itself. The problem may be when people compete against each other, and all of the egoistic aspects of being 'right'. What may be most helpful is if philosophy debate can be about ideas rather than becoming a mere matter
of personal battles. This is difficult at times, so an underlying awareness of the psychological aspects of persuasion is worth acknowledging when viewing and participating in the debates of philosophy.

[LuckyR]

My view is that debate in a philosophy, in an informal way, is worthwhile. That is because it allows for looking at all points of view and can generate new approaches. I began using philosophy forums for this reason. The only problem can be where it all gets a bit heavy handed in the form of insistent arguments. It is probably because philosophy debate is tricky and people may become attached to specific ideas. Also, the areas of philosophy, especially arising in relation to religion and politics are sensitive areas in human life. Nevertheless, I have found debate, including on this forum, helpful for critical.examination and do feel I have more clarity in my own thinking than I did several years ago as a result of dialogue with differing points of view.

And the fact that a successful debater succeeds by virtue of their superior *persuasive* skills doesn't bother you at all?

The issue of persuasion is a complexity of life. It includes many aspects, including articulateness and emotional aspects. In public speech, including in politics, there are seductive aspects, including non verbal communication and even personal appearance. These are worth being aware of, but it doesn't rule out any usefulness of debate in itself. The problem may be when people compete against each other, and all of the egoistic aspects of being 'right'. What may be most helpful is if philosophy debate can be about ideas rather than becoming a mere matter
of personal battles. This is difficult at times, so an underlying awareness of the psychological aspects of persuasion is worth acknowledging when viewing and participating in the debates of philosophy.

I don't have a problem with psychological "tricks" in philosophical debates since if everyone uses them, they cancel each other out and the inherent logic (and illogic) of the competing viewpoints are left to stand (or fall) on their own.

[JackDaydream]

My view is that debate in a philosophy, in an informal way, is worthwhile. That is because it allows for looking at all points of view and can generate new approaches. I began using philosophy forums for this reason. The only problem can be where it all gets a bit heavy handed in the form of insistent arguments. It is probably because philosophy debate is tricky and people may become attached to specific ideas. Also, the areas of philosophy, especially arising in relation to religion and politics are sensitive areas in human life. Nevertheless, I have found debate, including on this forum, helpful for critical.examination and do feel I have more clarity in my own thinking than I did several years ago as a result of dialogue with differing points of view.

And the fact that a successful debater succeeds by virtue of their superior *persuasive* skills doesn't bother you at all?

The issue of persuasion is a complexity of life. It includes many aspects, including articulateness and emotional aspects. In public speech, including in politics, there are seductive aspects, including non verbal communication and even personal appearance. These are worth being aware of, but it doesn't rule out any usefulness of debate in itself. The problem may be when people compete against each other, and all of the egoistic aspects of being 'right'. What may be most helpful is if philosophy debate can be about ideas rather than becoming a mere matter
of personal battles. This is difficult at times, so an underlying awareness of the psychological aspects of persuasion is worth acknowledging when viewing and participating in the debates of philosophy.

I don't have a problem with psychological "tricks" in philosophical debates since if everyone uses them, they cancel each other out and the inherent logic (and illogic) of the competing viewpoints are left to stand (or fall) on their own.

It is likely that psychological 'tricks' are inherent in all aspects of philosophy. This may go back to Socrates' emphasis on rhetoric and the cleverness of arguments of the Sophists.

The cancelling out of everyone's use of logic and the illogical is an important area underlying arguments is important. Hopefully, there is an awareness of gaps, such as what Hume identified as the problem of differentiating of an 'is' being translated into an 'ought'.

The whole complex use of ideas and language is not merely relevant to philosophy as a pursuit, but to its application of ideas for debate, including in matters of law. Ideas may be used in such a variety of ways, to promote or dispute ideas. The biggest problem which I see is when ideas are strung together as a form of mystification. One task of philosophy may be about demystification as analysis. Even with demystification, there can be a skewing of bias, which may be connected to the nature of values and the difficulty of achieving a perspective which is value free and independent of human biases.

[LuckyR]

And the fact that a successful debater succeeds by virtue of their superior *persuasive* skills doesn't bother you at all?

The issue of persuasion is a complexity of life. It includes many aspects, including articulateness and emotional aspects. In public speech, including in politics, there are seductive aspects, including non verbal communication and even personal appearance. These are worth being aware of, but it doesn't rule out any usefulness of debate in itself. The problem may be when people compete against each other, and all of the egoistic aspects of being 'right'. What may be most helpful is if philosophy debate can be about ideas rather than becoming a mere matter
of personal battles. This is difficult at times, so an underlying awareness of the psychological aspects of persuasion is worth acknowledging when viewing and participating in the debates of philosophy.

I don't have a problem with psychological "tricks" in philosophical debates since if everyone uses them, they cancel each other out and the inherent logic (and illogic) of the competing viewpoints are left to stand (or fall) on their own.

It is likely that psychological 'tricks' are inherent in all aspects of philosophy. This may go back to Socrates' emphasis on rhetoric and the cleverness of arguments of the Sophists.

The cancelling out of everyone's use of logic and the illogical is an important area underlying arguments is important. Hopefully, there is an awareness of gaps, such as what Hume identified as the problem of differentiating of an 'is' being translated into an 'ought'.

The whole complex use of ideas and language is not merely relevant to philosophy as a pursuit, but to its application of ideas for debate, including in matters of law. Ideas may be used in such a variety of ways, to promote or dispute ideas. The biggest problem which I see is when ideas are strung together as a form of mystification. One task of philosophy may be about demystification as analysis. Even with demystification, there can be a skewing of bias, which may be connected to the nature of values and the difficulty of achieving a perspective which is value free and independent of human biases.

I envision a (professional) philosopher noodling within his own skull to come up with his philosophy using nothing but life experience and logic. However, when the same individual has to "sell" his philosophy to others, I envision the same philosopher using every trick in the book to advance his creation in the competitive world of ideas.

[Pattern-chaser]

My view is that debate in a philosophy, in an informal way, is worthwhile. That is because it allows for looking at all points of view and can generate new approaches. I began using philosophy forums for this reason. The only problem can be where it all gets a bit heavy handed in the form of insistent arguments. It is probably because philosophy debate is tricky and people may become attached to specific ideas. Also, the areas of philosophy, especially arising in relation to religion and politics are sensitive areas in human life. Nevertheless, I have found debate, including on this forum, helpful for critical.examination and do feel I have more clarity in my own thinking than I did several years ago as a result of dialogue with differing points of view.

And the fact that a successful debater succeeds by virtue of their superior *persuasive* skills doesn't bother you at all?

The issue of persuasion is a complexity of life. It includes many aspects, including articulateness and emotional aspects. In public speech, including in politics, there are seductive aspects, including non verbal communication and even personal appearance. These are worth being aware of, but it doesn't rule out any usefulness of debate in itself. The problem may be when people compete against each other, and all of the egoistic aspects of being 'right'. What may be most helpful is if philosophy debate can be about ideas rather than becoming a mere matter
of personal battles. This is difficult at times, so an underlying awareness of the psychological aspects of persuasion is worth acknowledging when viewing and participating in the debates of philosophy.

I don't see anything here to argue with, but my central point still bothers me. If we see philosophy as a quest for knowledge and understanding — do we? — then how can a ... discipline that favours and nurtures persuasiveness over (say) knowledge or experience make a worthwhile contribution? N.B. I ask this question in the conscious knowledge that persuasiveness can be (and often is) used to mislead, perhaps intentionally? One such use might be to persuade your audience to reject an idea that clearly has merit in favour of one that doesn't (but is lucratively sponsored)?

I don't have a problem with psychological "tricks" in philosophical debates since if everyone uses them, they cancel each other out and the inherent logic (and illogic) of the competing viewpoints are left to stand (or fall) on their own.

And what if such chicanery is not employed by *everyone*? Must I behave so poorly, just so that I can join in?

[Pattern-chaser]

I envision a (professional) philosopher noodling within his own skull to come up with his philosophy using nothing but life experience and logic. However, when the same individual has to "sell" his philosophy to others, I envision the same philosopher using every trick in the book to advance his creation in the competitive world of ideas.

Is a philosopher a competitor, or only a contributor? Does (s)he "sell" ideas, or merely present them for consideration? Is philosophy subject to competitive (commercial) pressures now? [And I don't mean to refer to working philosophers, anxious to obtain grants and funding, although that is certainly an issue for them.]



Does AmeriCapitalism trump (pun intended) philosophy now? Is that what our world has become? Or am I getting carried away by a misunderstanding?