Is the concept of debate completely useless?
I feel like basically every time I debate any kind of topic (doesn't even have to be controversial, like politics, but of course there it's more common) with people where the participants don't all agree never actually leads to any conclusion where one of the participants would actually change their mind. No matter how the debate goes. No matter whether there is some irrefutable evidence that disproves what one of the participants believes, or if their position is illogical, or basically anything. I feel like people just become entrenched in defending their side, usually the debate starts going in circles, until someone just walks away from the debate or the topic gets changed.
I don't really like this, it just feels like wasted time... I'd rather if when people actually discuss topics that they'd come to reasonable conclusions that make more sense, make the world better, are better supported by evidence etc. I guess it can be considered to be fun, though I don't really feel it is very fun and instead it just frustrates me. But I guess "debate" is often being done basically fully as entertainment, just look at how big channels like Jubilee are getting on Youtube for example, though I kind of hate it.
Is there a better way to steer "debates" into something more productive that can actually change peoples minds?
The point of a debate isn’t to change your opponent’s mind, it is to sway the audience. Once you recognize that fact, common fallacious tactics (gish gollop, appeal to popularity, etc) and how to combat them, and common psychological biases of people (e.g., that emotion is more powerful than logic, or that relatability helps), then debating starts to make more sense.
No. Not really.
Modern debating has become sport. Who presented a 'better' argument. Well, debate has always been sport.
But it also comes with the expectation that we have a debate and when my superior argument wins, you'll immediately change your mind. That's never been the case in my life.
I have debates all the time. Policy, procedure, big far reaching things. Sometimes I watch cracks form. Sometimes I watch people double down on their ideas. Sometimes I get information that, while it doesn't make me change my mind, information why other people hold those opinions.
You'll never win a debate if you go into it thinking it's a debate is all.
Depends. Debate can be really useful to sharpen your own thinking, and between very specific people - usually people who already know each other and are open to having their mind changed, it can do that. But you're right that in most contexts, debate is counterproductive.
Yep! You may enjoy the linked book / podcast, but fundamentally it comes down to effective storytelling, nonjudgmental listening, and demonstrating that the "other side" is more similar to you than different. What most people think of as 'debating' has nothing at all to do with it.
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/03/709567750/radically-normal-how-gay-rights-activists-changed-the-minds-of-their-opponents#:~:text=Radically%20Normal:%20How%20Gay%20Rights%20Activists%20Changed%20The%20Minds%20Of%20Their%20Opponents.
A debate or argument is usually useless if your goal is to convince the mind of the other person. There's plenty of literature on what you can do in that circumstance, and it involves taking not an adversarial stance, but a cooperative stance. The first step has to be to find common ground and make the other person think that you are their ally, not a foe. I wouldn't call it a "debate", in that case.
That being said, there are other purposes. One is just to have fun. That's what I imagine 99% of arguments or debates on forums like this and on the internet as a whole as, even if the participants don't recognize it as. Not like there's much other reason!
Third, there is the matter of the audience. At its most extreme, take the presidential debate in the US. Do you think a democratic president will ever convince a republican position to change their "mind" on a position or vice versa? Of course not. But that's not the point. The point is that the audience watching hears both arguments and some portion can be swayed.
That's true on the internet as well. If someone likes pineapple on pizza, there's no way you're going to argue them into submission. But many people likely haven't made up their mind, so your words can convince them, even if they can't convince the other person you're talking to.
Not entirely, but I think the only place it actually is useful is in an academic, formal setting. In the wild, especially online, it's almost never useful, IMO and IME.
"Debate" is adversarial by nature, and the sides tend to get treated as if everything is binary; winning vs losing side, right vs wrong, factual/logical vs not, etc. So is it really any wonder that people get more entrenched when debated with/against (especially if they didn't agree to a "debate" in the first place) rather than giving any ground when confronted like that?
If you genuinely want to convince someone of something, perhaps don't treat interactions with them as debates, but just as conversations instead. Treat it as an opportunity to understand their perspective better, and for them to understand yours so you both walk away enriched with something valuable to reflect on.
p.s. And to be clear, I definitely haven't always followed my own advice on this, and so have gotten drawn into plenty of online "debates" (even here on Tildes)... hardly any of which I've felt were particularly productive, or especially good for my own mental health. But I am trying to change that, and have been ever since I left reddit where "debate" over damn near everything is the norm.
I agree.
The question is though, how do you actually do that? If someone for example says something that I think is false, and I can show some data that proves that it is false, how do I go about showing that without it turning into a debate?
You could try asking them why they still believe that thing despite X, Y, Z evidence to the contrary. But IMO the key is to genuinely be interested in and listen to their responses when you ask them questions like that. Treat it more as a learning experience for yourself, to try to truly understand where they're coming from and why they cling to those beliefs, rather than as part of some surreptitious "convincing them they're wrong" campaign.
I read somewhere that the best way to get someone to change their mind is to make them feel part of the "same tribe." But I don't want to do that every time. It takes a lot of time, commitment, consistency, etc. and ultimately I feel manipulative. I'd rather listen, learn, and form my own opinions that I use to guide myself, because I'm the only person I can truly affect.
Have you ever changed your mind when debating with someone? Or have you at least acknowledged that the other person had a good point or good bit of information that might alter your opinion or make you walk back some portion of your argument? If not, maybe the problem is how you approach the debate.
I know there's a bit of selection bias where people are more likely to join in if they already think they're right, so I think it makes sense that most of the time you wouldn't think that your opinion is changed by a given internet argument. However, if one doesn't go in with an adversarial attitude that "I joined this debate because I'm confident I'm right, so everyone who disagrees with me is stupid," it should occasionally happen that the other person makes a good point, even if it doesn't completely flip your view. I think that much is the best we can hope for from casual debates.
As for the other person, I've given up on thinking I'll ever get anyone to say "wow, I never thought of it that way, I was wrong and you're right," and I think it's a good thing not to approach discussions that way.
P.S. What a great topic. So many people are dying to weigh in here. It's almost like group therapy. Maybe it's because we can't help but argue that all the time we've spent typing comments to strangers on the internet has been worthwhile. Otherwise....
P.P.S. Everyone who disagrees with what I've written here is wrong.
Wow that's a good point, I realize now that I was wrong.
No, it's not dead and I won't go on repeating what several other responders have already stated as I agree with most (and I disagree with others) and I will often take a counterstance or play devil's advocate just for the debate itself as I outright enjoy debating, but I will touch on a couple of points...
Your wording is framed from a standpoint that you believe yourself to be the one in the right and the other people are the ones that should be changing their mind and aren't. If you're debating for the sake of taking in other viewpoints and not approaching it from the basis that you may simply be the one in the wrong from the outset, then you aren't debating at all. You're just stating your views and expecting others to agree.
This question reminded me of this video I saw recently that has a lot of relevant discussion by someone far deeper into debate than I've ever been: https://youtube.com/watch?v=e--spu93GVc. It's about organized debate not ad-hoc forum debate, but it felt very relevant to the question of value of debate. I will say the video is a bit too long for the points he's making though.
The video is by someone that is an atheist that used to debate Christian apologists, but now says that was a mistake and he won't be doing that going forward. From memory his reasons why are that it gives the opposing view an air of legitimacy, that it doesn't change any minds, and it felt morally bad because his presence was inadvertently giving support to the opposition.
He talks a lot about his personal experience in this field. One thing that stood out was that the opposition didn't really care if they "lost" because they were getting eyes and a platform that made the points seem even worth debate. By debating things on the same stage it gives the impression that both the sides are worth equal consideration.
One example more famous than himself that he uses is the Bill Nye debate. Just about everyone agrees that Nye "won", but the Christian organizers never needed to win. They got something like 15 million dollars in donations to build the Ark Encounter anyway. It gave them visibility and a perceived attack on their beliefs to rally behind while also visually legitimizing themselves by putting religious belief and scientific evidence on the same stage.
There is a difference between a debate and a discussion. Identify which you actually want to have first, and when you can steer towards the latter.
Almost no one changes their mind in the moment. If you are expecting someone to just fall apart and concede that "yep you were right all along, my entire worldview has been wrong from the get go" in a single conversation, you have unrealistic expectations. Most people change their views over time, even if that time is just spent thinking about a previous discussion with no further input. People are much much more likely to get defensive first, especially if they feel attacked, and dig in. People will deny the color of the sky if they feel like it means agreeing with someone they perceive as an asshole and bully.
Most debates do not exist to convince the participants, but instead the audience. Competitive debate is this way, as are most debates with ANY audience (thus most TV/Social media stuff).
In general it sounds like you've had conversations where you bludgeon people with facts and are upset that didn't instantly change their mind. It's not really how it works in practice. If you want someone to genuinely change positions it takes time, understanding, and usually empathy.
I understand what you are saying, and there are already a lot of good points in this thread that I don’t want to repeat. I don’t think debate is useless, you just need to take care with how you use it.
Before social media, online communities often had mixed viewpoints. When you got into a debate with someone, it was usually with someone you know, you may respect, or have high standing in the community. They may feel the same about you. And you both intend to continue to interact with each other after the debate. That creates a lot more space for good faith, nuance, and high quality discussion. Tildes provides this environment, which is why I treasure this site so much. I’ve had many people change my mindset here.
In modern times with most social media, you are most likely interacting in communities of likemindedness. If you run into that community uninvited with your fists up, it doesn’t matter if you are right. You seem like an asshole.
You need consent for debates. If folks are just vibing and you bust out a heated take while everyone is joking around having a good time and aren’t in the mood for a serious conversation, even the people who agree with you might think you’re just being a dick for not reading the mood.
Think about when you are running errands and someone wants to sell something to you. Even if it’s a good deal, you still don’t want to buy their shit right now, you’re doing something else in that moment. Debate can feel like intrusive in that same way.
It is really important that when you start a debate, it’s with someone who actually does want to engage with you over the topic, and you have a relationship that already has a foundation for respect and some shared values.
That is when you will find productive conversation where people are willing to hear you out and potentially change their mind.
You just can’t whip out your dick and asshole randomly, unless you’re at a dick and asshole festival. You can still do it, however, if someone asks to see your dick and asshole in private.
"Debates" ride a fine line between discussion and argument.
Argument is useless. Two people just insisting on their own perspectives and actively trying to reject whatever the other person is saying by any means possible does not go anywhere. Discussion is purposeful, where you are trying to understand the other persons perspective, but arent necessarily needing to end with either side winning or needing to change their minds.
I know neither of those words really mean exactly what I described but Im just trying to separate those two concepts.
If you can keep a debate mostly discussion and just a little bit of argument it could be useful. The reason it feels like it is not is because some people really enjoy arguing, or are so firmly committed to their position that they could never genuinely consider an alternate perspective, even if they wanted to, so the balance is heavily tipped toward argumentation.
Unfortunately, the kind of people who are best suited to having productive discussions are probably the least likely to want to engage in public discourse, because they dont like pointless arguing any more than you do, so they avoid getting involved, and the pepole you are left with are correspondingly more likely to be people who engage in arguing more.
This is actually two questions, each with different answers. To illustrate, allow me to share with you my own situation. I have a colleague with whom I disagree on virtually every topic. Furthermore, my colleague is voluble in the extreme, and I get treated regularly to sort of personalized, wide ranging podcast on a daily basis. However, this colleague and I share a friendship that has covered the better part of the past two decades.
Then for me, every day is an invitation to a debate, after a fashion, in the manner that you speak of. However, as a Bahá'í, I am not allowed to contend with any one and am enjoined to shun conflict and controversy, so I focus instead on inquiry. This result is that I have learned a great deal over the years and have come to appreciate the logic of certain worldviews, even if I do not share them.
To answer the first question: Yes, there is a way to steer debates into something more productive, practice inquiry.
To answer the second question: No, people do not change their minds due to debates. If two people are trying to solve a difficult problem, and one person has the right of it, the other person can be convinced, but debates you speak of are as much about style and perspective as they are about substance (if not more). You can learn much, if you choose, but it's likely that your counterpart already believes themselves to be possessed of the truth. How can you add to a cup that is already full?
Ive always had a hard time accepting that in a debate I have to only talk about talking points that help me and ignore (or straight up gaslight IMO) any point that would help the opposition.
Maybe it is just a problem with how it was taught to me in school but this mentality seems to be the norm IRL and I just hate it so much.
I always try to see through someone else's eyes and it feels bad when that is not reciprocated and im just seen as an enemy to them.
Viewing it through the lens of debate might be part of the issue. A debate, in my mind, is somewhat combative with a goal to "win". Even more so if you purely approach it from a logic based perspective. Logical arguments only work in as far as people can still place them in their own contextual framework. Which, often isn't all that logic as a lot of what we do is simply emption driven.
In my experience trying to approach things as a conversation where you don't necessarily need to "win" can actually be more effectively in making people aware of something or at least move some of their viewpoint. This means relating to them and sometimes moving towards them a bit in order to have them move towards your argument a bit.
In a online context I also tend to consider who I am trying to reach if it is about a topic that is important to me. Sometimes I reply to someone even though I know they will not budge. But where left alone the argument they made seems logical enough that it might persuade people coming in later. In that case my reply is more aimed at those people rather than the person I am directly replying to.
I would debate you on this but it's completely useless. :D
It is not completely useless. It is useless as a way to produce change in the interlocutor. But a debate has other uses.
Meta: judging by the comments debates allows you to quickly learn multiple different point of views.
I never learned to debate and I've regretted this many times in my life. When a group encounters a problem at my work, we discuss possible solutions, then settle on one. I can only really present my idea and move on, I don't really know how to persuade the group to go with that solution without it coming out as an argument.
The logical fallacy and manipulation stuff come from debate, right? Those things are useful to know when listening to any speaker or researching.