Debate can be a brutal process where egos are bruised, feelings are hurt, reputations are tarnished, bitter rivalries are formed and, sometimes, blood is shed. In other words debate as it is currently practiced has a tendency to be anything but a civil process.
This being what it may be, it is to be noted that in all such instances it is one or more human participants who get hot under the collar and not any particular viewpoint of debate. This is because it is humans who stake an interest in viewpoints and not the viewpoints themselves. However this is not to say that the conflict and debate of viewpoints is a pointless endeavour but rather such does imply that humans tend to debate with their own interests in mind and not the would-be interests of the viewpoints involved.
The primary interest of any viewpoint on any topic is validity. If a viewpoint is not valid then it loses purpose of being anything beyond an nonfunctional musing. Validity is the life-force of viewpoints and here lies a viewpoint’s (admittedly personified) interest in debate as a means of achieving and defending one’s validity.
Any other interest is relatively superfluous in importance and include crossing the gap from acceptability to superiority and finally to supremacy. The reason why such pursuits are less important than validation is because validation represents a tipping point. If a concept, idea or viewpoint falls out of favour then it has a harder time making a comeback, especially in the event of alternative competing viewpoints. Acceptance as being valid also affords viewpoints a greater deal of exposure and hence also development. This is how ideas evolve.
Individuals seek to better viewpoints either to better themselves or the world that they have to deal with. There is a fine line between the two motives as the methods used to achieve each are potentially very different to each other.
Entries (RSS)