Are there ways the Left can have better conversations with the Right?

[We Never Know]

Granted this clearly isn't a structured formal debate forum.

The debates or 'debates' as one sees it is more akin with getting the steam out of a person more than anything else.

Or annoying the person to death lol

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think that debates have the potential to be more formal, but that it'd be a community effort to get there (not advocating for it, just saying). One of the reasons I say that, is I've gotten the sense quite a few regulars have some experience on debating formally.

It's easy to tell by the way they address the topic and not resort to attacking their opponents person or character.

On look at the exchanges can pretty clearly point out those who consistently do that and those who don't.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

It's easy to tell by the way they address the topic and not resort to attacking their opponents person or character.

On look at the exchanges can pretty clearly point out those who consistently do that and those who don't.

I'd say that the best debaters I've met demonstrate kindness.

I'd also say that in a general sense, there are some which demonstrate proficiency in logic, but that tend to showboat. I'd say that they're still good debaters, but may be prone to "weakening" their position.

 

[Heyo]

I have noticed that some people on the right or center accuse those on the left of using "slurs" when they disagree with them. However, when I look at the messages, I just see the left as trying to have an intellectually honest formal debate.

And that there is the first major error. You only want that because you are superior there. The right can't win when intellect and honesty are involved so when you invite them you set them up for failure.

 

[We Never Know]

And that there is the first major error. You only want that because you are superior there. The right can't win when intellect and honesty are involved so when you invite them you set them up for failure.

"The right can't win when intellect and honesty are involved"

Right off the bat you attack and call them stupid liars. I'm sure some are just like some on the left are.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

"The right can't win when intellect and honesty are involved"

Right off the bat you attack and call them stupid liars. I'm sure some are just like some on the left are.

Though I don't agree with @Heyo entirely, I'd say it may also be important not to prove and self-evidence his point.

 

[We Never Know]

(Continued....)

ie, @Heyo made the statement that he thought the Right was worse at reason (he implied "intellectual honesty", but I don't want to explain that concept, so I'll go with reason). This was in response to me saying that when reason is used, that people result to accusing people of "slurs".

So, by accusing him of calling you a liar, when "intellectual honesty" means something different, it demonstrates both points, even if that wasn't really the intention nor implies necessarily that things are "always" that way.

"he implied "intellectual honesty"

Read it again... "intellect and honesty". They are two different things.

And I didn't accuse him if calling "me" a liar, I said "them"

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

"he implied "intellectual honesty"

Read it again... "intellect and honesty". They are two different things.

Understanding a person's thoughts via Critical Thinking sometimes requires reading between the lines to properly and hopefully realistically evaluate the points.

 

[We Never Know]

Understanding a person's thoughts via Critical Thinking sometimes requires reading between the lines to properly and hopefully realistically evaluate the points.

Lol. It says what it says... intellect and honesty followed by "are" separates them into two different things. Not to mention the "and". Thats what my critical thinking finds in it.

And that there is the first major error. You only want that because you are superior there. The right can't win when intellect and honesty are involved so when you invite them you set them up for failure.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Lol. It says what it says... intellect and honesty followed by "are" separates them into two different things. Not to mention the "and". Thats what my critical thinking finds in it.

I respect your right to see it differently. I could even be wrong, myself.

 

[Heyo]

"The right can't win when intellect and honesty are involved"

Right off the bat you attack and call them stupid liars. I'm sure some are just like some on the left are.

That's how I see them and, it seems. so do you.

What I was getting at, though admittedly with some sass, is that the right usually communicates on a different level. (And I include most of the dems as "right".) When they talk to each other and to their constituency, logos is not the primary rhetorical method, pathos is. They communicate emotions and they appeal to emotions, mostly fear. And, like it or not, it is a channel by which they reach their voters.
Why would they participate in an intellectually honest debate? People wanting that and listening to that aren't their targeted audience.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

That's how I see them and, it seems. so do you.

What I was getting at, though admittedly with some sass, is that the right usually communicates on a different level. (And I include most of the dems as "right".) When they talk to each other and to their constituency, logos is not the primary rhetorical method, pathos is. They communicate emotions and they appeal to emotions, mostly fear. And, like it or not, it is a channel by which they reach their voters.
Why would they participate in an intellectually honest debate? People wanting that and listening to that aren't their targeted audience.

That's honestly clearer than what I would have come up with.

My apologies. It's midnight and I'm not very sharp this late.

 

[Heyo]

That's honestly clearer than what I would have come up with.

My apologies. It's midnight and I'm not very sharp this late.

No need to apologise. I sometimes am vague and controversial on purpose. Its using emotions to foster debate. Had I formulated my first post neutral and rational, I wouldn't have got the same reaction.

 

[sun rise]

IMO the biggest problem with trying to debate here are the crowds involved in the debate. One person may have to simultaneously debate seven+ different people that throw out ten+ different things simultaneously.
For that, I think discussion is better. Debates should be in a thread one on one. Maybe with a poll at the top to vote for who won.

There are one-on-one debates possible but unless you know ahead of time, they're not very useful. Maybe we can remember to invite someone to a one-on-one debate or a group to a team debate. One-on-One Debates

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

There are one-on-one debates possible but unless you know ahead of time, they're not very useful. Maybe we can remember to invite someone to a one-on-one debate or a group to a team debate. One-on-One Debates

Yep.

And this is where I remember my performances in that board, and cringe.

 

[Revoltingest]

The right can't win when intellect and honesty are involved so when you invite them you set them up for failure.

This illustrates the belief that one's side
is always right, & the other is always wrong.
Many issues have no objective right or wrong,
eg, preference for form of governance,
preference for economic structure,
preference for level of free speech.

Ain't nobody got The Truth on such things.
So avoid righteousness...it's the mind killer.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

This illustrates the belief that one's side
is always right, & the other is always wrong.
Many issues have no objective right or wrong,
eg, preference for form of governance,
preference for economic structure,
preference for level of free speech.

Ain't nobody got The Truth on such things.
So avoid excessive certainty...it's the mind killer.

I still think there's something to be said for the ability, whether on the left or right, to critically and logically evaluate claims. However, the nature of the issues is often enough, that being able to do so might produce a better argument, but might not necessarily be more "correct". It could even be that the more simplistic views could (potentially) be the most correct.

 

[wellwisher]

I have noticed that some people on the right or center accuse those on the left of using "slurs" when they disagree with them. However, when I look at the messages, I just see the left as trying to have an intellectually honest formal debate. I feel they are often not insulting the person, but challenging their arguments and evidence. I think there are multiple interpretations of the ad hominem fallacy as well, and it's not always clear when someone is committing it or not. An ad hominem fallacy is when someone attacks the character or motive of a person instead of their position or claim, as an argument. But sometimes, pointing out a relevant flaw or bias in someone's reasoning can be valid and necessary. For example - if someone works for a soda company, then exposing their conflict of interest in a debate on sugary drinks is not a personal attack, but a legitimate criticism.

I have to admit... I sometimes wonder if the right would feel better if there was somehow more discussion threads and less debate threads.

In any case... do you have any suggestions on how we can improve the quality and tone of our conversations? I'm talking in more of a "person on the left talking to a person on the right" sense.

The problems come down to good data, versus fudged data and lack of data. Conservative has to do with conservation of the past; values of religion and family. This goes back thousands of years and has lots of test proven data. Liberalism is often about the new which at times, is not even pilot tested, before being placed in production; limited data and off to market.

For example, transgender had been considered a pathology by the medical and psychiatric communities for decades. All of a sudden, this is being sold as though it is a natural as snow in the winter. I have yet to see all new science data to support this. The lack of data does not matter, if you can market this like they did with the pet rock.

You cannot have an honest debate when there is no science data, only forced indoctrination and censorship. If you look at climate change, it is fixated on manmade, but rarely spends any time on natural climate change. This one-sided approach is conceptually flawed in terms of complete science. But the debate tries to maintain the lopsided, with name calling such as denier=natural. Liberalism is about new ideas, and then marketing to create the illusions of valid. The Liberal cannot have an open debate, less the gaps begin to show, spoiling the magic trick. This is why censorship is needed.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

The problems come down to good data, versus fudged data and lack of data. Conservative has to do with conservation of the past; values of religion and family. This goes back thousands of years and has lots of test proven data. Liberalism is often about the new which at times, is not even pilot tested, before being placed in production; limited data and off to market.

For example, transgender had been considered a pathology by the medical and psychiatric communities for decades. All of a sudden, this is being sold as though it is a natural as snow in the winter. I have yet to see all new science data to support this. The lack of data does not matter, if you can market this like they did with the pet rock.

You cannot have an honest debate when there is no science data, only forced indoctrination and censorship. If you look at climate change, it is fixated on manmade, but rarely spends any time on natural climate change. This one-sided approach is conceptually flawed in terms of complete science. But the debate tries to maintain the lopsided, with name calling such as denier=natural. Liberalism is about new ideas, and then marketing to create the illusions of valid. The Liberal cannot have an open debate, less the gaps begin to show, spoiling the magic trick. This is why censorship is needed.

I think we agree on a few basic points here, even if I view things in a slightly different fashion (through a different pair of glasses).

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

So far, I think one great piece of advice in this thread for discussing/debating with the Right was:

• Treat differences as philosophical/worldview differences, and not as right/wrong, educated/uneducated, intelligent/unintelligent​