Debate the issues and not the persons. This is possibly the most important rule that has all but been forgotten by the majority of those who partake in debate. It is this forgetfulness and lack of understanding of the nature of debate that make such seem like a brutal affair.
It is all too common for debates to stray from the issue at hand. It is also common for the arguments to stray into the realm of insults and threats. It happens in the kitchen. It happens on the streets. It even happens in parliaments around the World. However, while many would resort to such means to win an argument they only assure their loss.
Sure, the thug who beats another person while losing an argument on, for example, how many sides a triangle has, might kid himself into believing that he has proven his point through silencing his opposition. However if he firmly believes that a triangle has four sides then it is only a matter of time before he is confronted again and in the meantime also owes his previous victim a debt in justice.
No matter how many times you silence opposition for trying to oppose the notion of a triangle having four sides, a triangle doesn’t in fact have four sides (leaving aside the argument of redefinition of the term ‘triangle’).
Likewise, if another person is beaten up for claiming that a triangle has four sides then that person is either going to abandon that notion or is going to stick to it more than ever. However this is not to say that he might or might not be convinced by the argument of e assailant involved, as there is no argument, only violent action. The choice to abandon such a notion under such circumstances would be fueled by a sense of self-preservation and not enlightenment. On the other hand sticking to it would represent a strengthened resolve, with the person correctly observing that he or she may have been beaten but the viewpoint he or she was beaten up for remained unscathed.
This is because ideas cannot be defeated through any degree of violence short of a mass extermination of all keepers and propagators of such ideas. This of course is not only immoral but extremely inefficient. After all there are millions of people but just one idea (although there can be dozens or hundreds of variants). It is within this fact that one may find the truth about ideas. An idea can almost never be killed upon the level of the person harbouring it but has to be dealt with upon the level of ideas. Since validity of an idea is its life-force then so too is the invalidation of an idea representative of its imminent demise.
That is, of course, if the idea can be invalidated. Many ideas that face opposition simply cannot be invalidated because they ‘are’ ultimately valid. The next-worst danger that ideas face is the establishment of inferiority to another idea and so on. In any case ideas can either be deemed invalid or inferior to another idea. If there does exist a superior idea then the original idea either evolves and improves upon itself or takes backstage.
Petty insults and threats do not serve any purpose in debate other than to cheat the viewpoints concerned of valuable potential for development.
Entries (RSS)