How to Have a High-Minded Debate

Difficulty: Moderately Challenging

Instructions

Things You'll Need:

Patience.
Education.
Facts.
Acute listening skills.

Step 1

Fighting.

Debating VS Fighting: Many people confuse debating with fighting, and thus avoid it, as any peaceful human being would. However, high-minded debating is the very essence of peaceful discourse. While it is true that one is often arguing for or against an idea, debating is different than fighting in that it is not (or should not be) personal. Of course, that too is debatable. Many people are extremely attached to their views. They build entire lives around these ideas; create their person and worldview from them. Governments and economies are built on ideas. Wars are fought based on ideas. Thus, one can see where ideas can cease to be ideas in the mind of the arguer and this individual may consider your differing opinion a personal assault on his or her way of life. If this occurs one is no longer debating, but fighting. Fighting is something that happens between two people when one or the other individual runs out of viable ideas, or feels his or her ideas have been disproven, and begins to feel threatened. This is when a person or group of people may resort to less intellectual means of getting their way: character assassination, mocking, mindless repetition of old dogmas, or in worst cases physical and verbal abuse. Unless one has given others permission to mock, ridicule, or patronize him or her in this manner (such as in a roast), this is unacceptable behavior from respectable human beings. Once one's ideas have been disproven, the respectable thing to do is to politely excuse oneself from the debate and listen to the individual with the best ideas. Or, better yet, do more research to form a more solid argument and return at a later date to try again. To continue spreading an idea as truth when it has been disproven or is no longer the most likely theory is intellectual dishonesty and harmful to everyone. To point out holes in what is considered to be the most viable theory available without presenting a MORE LIKELY alternative, is no better.
Step 2

High-Minded Debate: So how does one have one of these high-minded debates? It is called, "High-minded," because it is an argument of ideas. Thus, a debate of this nature may start as one person publicly stating something they feel strongly about. For example, "I don't feel like I should have to pay all these taxes to pay for things I don't even use. It's my money, why should I have to give it to the government?" Someone standing nearby may hear such a comment and refute the statement with an alternative idea, such as, "You live in a country with several million people. I assume you use roads and bridges and the mail system, and possibly even the public school system. Even if you don't you probably know people who do, and you still benefit from the clean air and water provided by monitoring programs, the military protecting our nation, etc, etc." Now two sides have been established. If the first person commenting wants to hold his or her ground, he or she needs to establish a rebuttal, or a returning argument. If he or she cannot, the proper thing to do would be to excuse oneself from the conversation, or admit that the other person is correct. The improper thing to do would be to immediately reduce the conversation to a fight, and take the rebuttal personally. "Who the hell are you?" or "Who asked you?" are not rebuttals and sound ignorant. If one is going to make public statements about issues that are many sided, one should be prepared to stand behind one's remarks. Of course there are people who just enjoy the thrill of debate and will argue with anyone no matter what is said. It is not rude to simply state that one is not interested in debating at the moment (as there are proper times and places for such things). However, it is not okay to continue complaining about the issue at this point. Either have the debate publically so everyone involved may form an opinion, defer the debate to later date when it is more appropriate, or abandon the issue altogether. It is not rude for someone to refute an idea being stated publically. It is rude to state an idea publically and not be prepared to back it up.
Step 3

Debate Clock.

Back and Forth: Even in an off-the-cuff debate there needs to be a fair back and forth. There is a way to disagree without being disagreeable. Unless one's viewpoint is anarchy and one is making one's point by intentionally not subscribing to the basic tenants of civilized debate (which I don't recommend unless one wants one's opinion to be discarded completely), allowing one's opposition space to speak his or her mind is the appropriate thing to do. Many highly incompatible ideologies exist within the borders of America everyday and seem to do so with relative peace and civility. Most Americans are extremely proud of this fact, even if, when pressed, each individual may not hesitate to tear down the beliefs of another individual. Attacking one's beliefs, however, should not be considered an attack on the individual. After all, although there is freedom in most civilized countries to believe whatever one chooses, if one cannot back up one's beliefs intellectually with data and facts and logical arguments, it is not irrational to expect that perhaps this individual should move on from these beliefs in lieu of something more rational and less fantastical. Thus, everyone should spend some time at some point in his or her life to get these ideas straightened out. To simply live as one was raised is fundamentalism-the worst kind of mindless following. To live as the majority does even when one takes issue with how one's society is behaving is no better. However, to violently or irrationally go against the norms of a society with no greater purpose than bitterness, anger, or rebelliousness is just as dysfunctional.
Step 4

Mark Twain the Master of Satire.

Satire and Irony: There are times when it is okay and even appropriate to mock. People hold on to old ideas long after their time has passed. Some humans desperately need the comforts of tradition and ritual. They cling to times in their life when they were happier and freer and continue to repeat the behaviors of that era, sometimes until they pass on. When it is discovered that something in those traditions and rituals is no longer applicable or is even dysfunctional to society at large, these individuals may become very upset with being forced to change. These are not people one wants to debate with. It is not that these individuals are wrong, necessarily, it is just that the ideas they are expressing are often older and no longer the most useful. For example, it is not wrong to debate that we could pay off the United States' national debt by all living in cabins and farming our own land. In fact, it would be very hard to argue that this would not be true, however it is not likely to happen and mostly out of the realm of real possibility for what could be enforced upon modern day Americans. Thus, sometimes using clever jokes, metaphors, and comparisons is all one is armed with in a debate against irrational people. Or, if one wants to be the epitome of polite, one can always just walk away.

Comments

athome said

Flag This Comment

on 5/21/2009 I love debating politics and religion. One hundred years ago when I was in school I was the captain of the debate team. Great atticle Jeff. 5*

Merriment said

on 5/14/2009 This is a wonderful article on intellectually dealing with debates!

kittycooks said

on 5/11/2009 So true! Thanks for sharing your high minded tips!

veggiedog said

on 5/11/2009 I have always shyed away from debating because I think I confused it with fighting. Thank you for giving me ideas about how to have a high-minded debate.