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

[LuckyR]

Debate undeniably holds a significant place in the realm of philosophy. At its core, philosophy thrives on questioning, exploring, and critically analyzing ideas. Debate serves as the conduit for this intellectual discourse, allowing philosophers to dissect concepts, challenge assumptions, and refine arguments.

Through debate, philosophers engage in a dialectical process, exchanging perspectives to arrive at a deeper understanding of complex ideas. It fosters intellectual growth by pushing individuals to defend their beliefs rigorously while remaining open to alternative viewpoints.

Moreover, the history of philosophy itself is a testament to the pivotal role of debate. From Socratic dialogues to contemporary academic forums, philosophical progress often emerges from the clash of differing opinions.

However, it's crucial to note that debate in philosophy isn't merely about winning arguments but about pursuing truth and expanding knowledge. When conducted respectfully and with a genuine pursuit of understanding, debate becomes a cornerstone of philosophical inquiry, enriching the discipline and guiding the search for profound insights into existence, ethics, knowledge, and more.

Thanks for your reply, Diyan, and welcome to our forum!

I read your post with interest. But, in the context of this topic, when you write "debate", I find my self reading "(co-operative?) discussion". That's what it sounds like to me. Have I got this wrong, and taken from your words the wrong impression? For the debate you describe seems not to involve persuasion as its raison d'etre, but sensible and rational inquiry, and the search for knowledge and understanding.

Well pointing out a legitimate weakness in another's theory is valuable to the theory's author, whether they realize it or not. Also regardless of the intention of the individual who pointed it out.

Fair points. But I still feel I must return to my central point. Debate focusses on persuasion, with the search for knowledge and understanding demoted to (at best) second priority. Is that one point enough to bar debate from philosophical discussion, though? I think it is, and you...?

Well, debate can't be debated without an alternative. If the options are competitive vs co-operative discussion (with debate occupying the "competitive" position) I agree co-operative is (slightly to moderately) superior. OTOH if the options are debate or silence, then I would choose debate every time. You?

[Pattern-chaser]

Well, debate can't be debated without an alternative.

Thank you! When I started this topic, I was aware of only one negative side to debate: persuasion. Now, thanks to you, I have realised there is a second one: the mandatory requirement for an exclusively-binary approach. Debate can only exist in an environment of binary-thinking win-lose conflict. It is incapable of nuance or subtlety, unable to embrace maybe, or any similar flexibility of thought.

To be fair, there are some issues that can be usefully managed in this way. But in philosophy, there are also issues that cannot.

If the options are competitive vs co-operative discussion (with debate occupying the "competitive" position) I agree co-operative is (slightly to moderately) superior. OTOH if the options are debate or silence, then I would choose debate every time. You?

Is "debate or silence" a useful dichotomy to introduce here? I would've thought that "debate or discussion" was more, er, appropriate?

[LuckyR]

Well, debate can't be debated without an alternative.

Thank you! When I started this topic, I was aware of only one negative side to debate: persuasion. Now, thanks to you, I have realised there is a second one: the mandatory requirement for an exclusively-binary approach. Debate can only exist in an environment of binary-thinking win-lose conflict. It is incapable of nuance or subtlety, unable to embrace maybe, or any similar flexibility of thought.

To be fair, there are some issues that can be usefully managed in this way. But in philosophy, there are also issues that cannot.

If the options are competitive vs co-operative discussion (with debate occupying the "competitive" position) I agree co-operative is (slightly to moderately) superior. OTOH if the options are debate or silence, then I would choose debate every time. You?

Is "debate or silence" a useful dichotomy to introduce here? I would've thought that "debate or discussion" was more, er, appropriate?

Happy to help out, and thanks for also demonstrating that one can use thoughtful (co-operative discussion) analysis after a competitive (debate style) sparring session.

I agree (that's why I proposed first) that debate vs discussion is the most common dichotomy, though definitely not the only one.

[A Material Girl]

I think debate does have a place in philosophy because when we debate we are in search of information and knowledge. In the process of searching for the truth and knowledge one does gain the philosophy skills and a deep understanding of issues.

In my process of searching for the truth,
I got lucky and found the Truth quickly:
viewtopic.php?p=452114#p452114

[rahulverma]

A debate typically involves two or more opposing sides presenting arguments in support of their position, with the aim of persuading an audience or judge of the superiority of their viewpoint. remote jobs hiring often focus on specific issues or propositions and involve structured rules for argumentation and rebuttal.

[Pattern-chaser]

Interesting to hear, this morning on BBC Radio4's "Today" news programme, a Church of England cleric saying that argument can be less useful/effective if we enter with the sole aim of winning.

In other words, and in the context of this topic, he was recommending discussion over debate.

[LuckyR]

Interesting to hear, this morning on BBC Radio4's "Today" news programme, a Church of England cleric saying that argument can be less useful/effective if we enter with the sole aim of winning.

In other words, and in the context of this topic, he was recommending discussion over debate.

I don't necessarily disagree, though a lesser appreciated benefit of competitive debate is it forced one to organize one's own thoughts (in order to make a coherent argument) which can play a role in crystallizing a Philosophy within one's mind.

[Pattern-chaser]

Interesting to hear, this morning on BBC Radio4's "Today" news programme, a Church of England cleric saying that argument can be less useful/effective if we enter with the sole aim of winning.

In other words, and in the context of this topic, he was recommending discussion over debate.

I don't necessarily disagree, though a lesser appreciated benefit of competitive debate is it forced one to organize one's own thoughts (in order to make a coherent argument) which can play a role in crystallizing a Philosophy within one's mind.

Doesn't that apply at least as much (if not more?) to co-operative discussion as it does to "competitive debate"?

[LuckyR]

Interesting to hear, this morning on BBC Radio4's "Today" news programme, a Church of England cleric saying that argument can be less useful/effective if we enter with the sole aim of winning.

In other words, and in the context of this topic, he was recommending discussion over debate.

I don't necessarily disagree, though a lesser appreciated benefit of competitive debate is it forced one to organize one's own thoughts (in order to make a coherent argument) which can play a role in crystallizing a Philosophy within one's mind.

Doesn't that apply at least as much (if not more?) to co-operative discussion as it does to "competitive debate"?

In my experience, concentrating on areas of agreement is less motivating (since if you do a mediocre job the other guy may pick up your slack) than focusing on aspects of disagreement (since you will lose in inverted proportion to your efforts).

Though I acknowledge other's experience may differ.

[Pattern-chaser]

Interesting to hear, this morning on BBC Radio4's "Today" news programme, a Church of England cleric saying that argument can be less useful/effective if we enter with the sole aim of winning.

In other words, and in the context of this topic, he was recommending discussion over debate.

I don't necessarily disagree, though a lesser appreciated benefit of competitive debate is it forced one to organize one's own thoughts (in order to make a coherent argument) which can play a role in crystallizing a Philosophy within one's mind.

Doesn't that apply at least as much (if not more?) to co-operative discussion as it does to "competitive debate"?

In my experience, concentrating on areas of agreement is less motivating (since if you do a mediocre job the other guy may pick up your slack) than focusing on aspects of disagreement (since you will lose in inverted proportion to your efforts).

Though I acknowledge other's experience may differ.

Oh my. You seem to have the impression that co-operative discussion only permits agreement, or something like that? I don't think so. Co-operative discussion is argument without ego, bounded by courtesy. This does not in any way limit what can be discussed, but it does involve a total lack of personal attacks, and participants are expected to leave their egos at the door. The aim is simply to exchange views, on the path to greater learning and understanding, not merely to 'win'.

[LuckyR]

Interesting to hear, this morning on BBC Radio4's "Today" news programme, a Church of England cleric saying that argument can be less useful/effective if we enter with the sole aim of winning.

In other words, and in the context of this topic, he was recommending discussion over debate.

I don't necessarily disagree, though a lesser appreciated benefit of competitive debate is it forced one to organize one's own thoughts (in order to make a coherent argument) which can play a role in crystallizing a Philosophy within one's mind.

Doesn't that apply at least as much (if not more?) to co-operative discussion as it does to "competitive debate"?

In my experience, concentrating on areas of agreement is less motivating (since if you do a mediocre job the other guy may pick up your slack) than focusing on aspects of disagreement (since you will lose in inverted proportion to your efforts).

Though I acknowledge other's experience may differ.

Oh my. You seem to have the impression that co-operative discussion only permits agreement, or something like that? I don't think so. Co-operative discussion is argument without ego, bounded by courtesy. This does not in any way limit what can be discussed, but it does involve a total lack of personal attacks, and participants are expected to leave their egos at the door. The aim is simply to exchange views, on the path to greater learning and understanding, not merely to 'win'.

I don't disagree with your post as stated. It's just that in my nomenclature, courteous argument would fall under "competitive".

[Pattern-chaser]

Interesting to hear, this morning on BBC Radio4's "Today" news programme, a Church of England cleric saying that argument can be less useful/effective if we enter with the sole aim of winning.

In other words, and in the context of this topic, he was recommending discussion over debate.

I don't necessarily disagree, though a lesser appreciated benefit of competitive debate is it forced one to organize one's own thoughts (in order to make a coherent argument) which can play a role in crystallizing a Philosophy within one's mind.

Doesn't that apply at least as much (if not more?) to co-operative discussion as it does to "competitive debate"?

In my experience, concentrating on areas of agreement is less motivating (since if you do a mediocre job the other guy may pick up your slack) than focusing on aspects of disagreement (since you will lose in inverted proportion to your efforts).

Though I acknowledge other's experience may differ.

Oh my. You seem to have the impression that co-operative discussion only permits agreement, or something like that? I don't think so. Co-operative discussion is argument without ego, bounded by courtesy. This does not in any way limit what can be discussed, but it does involve a total lack of personal attacks, and participants are expected to leave their egos at the door. The aim is simply to exchange views, on the path to greater learning and understanding, not merely to 'win'.

I don't disagree with your post as stated. It's just that in my nomenclature, courteous argument would fall under "competitive".

OK, our minor difference in the way we use words is just that, and we can ignore it.

But my objection to debate, that we can also call "competitive" argument (I think?), is that the priority is to win, not to learn. Co-operative argument seeks to learn, to gain knowledge and understanding, through an exchange of views. I cannot see how the former could be viewed as superior to the latter, from a philosophical point of view.

[LuckyR]

Interesting to hear, this morning on BBC Radio4's "Today" news programme, a Church of England cleric saying that argument can be less useful/effective if we enter with the sole aim of winning.

In other words, and in the context of this topic, he was recommending discussion over debate.

I don't necessarily disagree, though a lesser appreciated benefit of competitive debate is it forced one to organize one's own thoughts (in order to make a coherent argument) which can play a role in crystallizing a Philosophy within one's mind.

Doesn't that apply at least as much (if not more?) to co-operative discussion as it does to "competitive debate"?

In my experience, concentrating on areas of agreement is less motivating (since if you do a mediocre job the other guy may pick up your slack) than focusing on aspects of disagreement (since you will lose in inverted proportion to your efforts).

Though I acknowledge other's experience may differ.

Oh my. You seem to have the impression that co-operative discussion only permits agreement, or something like that? I don't think so. Co-operative discussion is argument without ego, bounded by courtesy. This does not in any way limit what can be discussed, but it does involve a total lack of personal attacks, and participants are expected to leave their egos at the door. The aim is simply to exchange views, on the path to greater learning and understanding, not merely to 'win'.

I don't disagree with your post as stated. It's just that in my nomenclature, courteous argument would fall under "competitive".

OK, our minor difference in the way we use words is just that, and we can ignore it.

But my objection to debate, that we can also call "competitive" argument (I think?), is that the priority is to win, not to learn. Co-operative argument seeks to learn, to gain knowledge and understanding, through an exchange of views. I cannot see how the former could be viewed as superior to the latter, from a philosophical point of view.

Well, I love winning, but I accomplish that by acknowledging that others definitely may know more than I do, so I seeking out superior arguments, stealing them and incorporating them into my argument 2.0, so I can improve and thus win.

So I guess the difference is seeking to win today or win tomorrow (and the next day).

[Pattern-chaser]

Well, I love winning, but I accomplish that by acknowledging that others definitely may know more than I do, so I seeking out superior arguments, stealing them and incorporating them into my argument 2.0, so I can improve and thus win.

So I guess the difference is seeking to win today or win tomorrow (and the next day).

Then I think we must agree to differ. Your position feels wrong to me, but we have explored the more factual components of our disagreement, and failed to reconcile our differences. So thanks for the exchange, Lucky!

[Pattern-chaser]

Well, I love winning, but I accomplish that by acknowledging that others definitely may know more than I do, so I seeking out superior arguments, stealing them and incorporating them into my argument 2.0, so I can improve and thus win.

So I guess the difference is seeking to win today or win tomorrow (and the next day).

A post script to add to our exchange:

Competitive argument is binary win/lose. In co-operative discussion, all those who contribute, win. All of them. No losers.