Avoiding Aggravation in Debate

[ajqtrz]

Aggravation has been defined as an: "act or circumstance that intensifies something or makes something worse," and by "worse" it would seem the dictionary means to say less pleasant. Sadly, people get aggravated and generally speaking, do so when things intensify. In argument aggravation usually occurs in the presence of frustration and that, is in response to the failure of a conflict to be resolved, especially when they think it has been in their favor.

To avoid aggravation in a debate isn't easy but it is possible to a large degree. To do it though, you must start with the idea that you could be wrong. This short circuits the defense mechanism and allows you to actually deal with the question in a more rational manner. So start with "I could be wrong about this..."

The second step is to examine both sides of the issue. As John Steward Mills wrote:

"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion...”

This is, of course, a lot of work. The importance of the question determines if you want to do that much work or not. The question may not be as important to you as to your opponent and thus, you may think it not worth your time and energy. But of course, if your opponent does see it as more important they may put more work/effort into it and present more complex arguments. In reality it's a bit like two football teams, on of which has clinched the top seed post-season berth and has no need to win this final game while the other is in a fight to the death competition to win the last berth of the post season. Which do you think, psychologically speaking, will come better prepared to win?

So just as a good football team that wants to make it into the playoffs studies the film of the last opponents game(s) the best prepared debaters study their opponents arguments and try, the best they can, to even improve them until they, as John Steward Mills suggested, know their opponents point of view better than he or she.

The thing is, in those many classes a long time ago I discovered that the ones who were least aggravated by opposition to the most intense attack on their beliefs had done their homework and were never surprised at the tenacity, vitriol, or lack of logic of their opponent exactly because they had already seen it before in their preparations.

In summary: you avoid aggravation in debate by being humble enough to think you might be wrong and well enough informed you can present not only your own case well, but often the case of your opponent better than he or she can.

That's how to avoid aggravation in debate.

AJ

 

[StarLoad]

Aj, you make the assumption that both sides want to "win" as an outcome. It is entirely possible that only one side wants to win and the other side doesn't want to or care, as they are not "in the game" so to speak. Sometimes people are just observers with opinions and have no interest in the game but will give you an opinion about it.

I don't play golf and do not plan to start, but I know the names of the major players and equipment providers and even some of the golf courses. I can give you my opinions on many aspects of the game and its participants and play. But I am no expert and cant quote rules and restrictions that are applied, but I can venture an opinion about how a player is penalized by some archaic rule. To be honest I hate the game won't watch it and see it as a major waste of time and money. Also my opinion but it will also frame how some of my other opinions are formed.

The total opposite can be said for one that loves golf. That being said some will share their opinions vociferously for a thing they love even if goes way past the point of aggravation. Whereas for something they hate they will walk away before getting too aggravated because the level of hate for the thing isn't a driver to keep going.

I speak of things in the general sense as individuals are very unique.

But your desire to push debates and logical arguments is what fuels most of the aggravations, we can all have opinions even when they are in opposition to each other. You need to respect that of others, IMO.

Ed

 

[ajqtrz]

Aj, you make the assumption that both sides want to "win" as an outcome. It is entirely possible that only one side wants to win and the other side doesn't want to or care, as they are not "in the game" so to speak. Sometimes people are just observers with opinions and have no interest in the game but will give you an opinion about it.

I don't play golf and do not plan to start, but I know the names of the major players and equipment providers and even some of the golf courses. I can give you my opinions on many aspects of the game and its participants and play. But I am no expert and cant quote rules and restrictions that are applied, but I can venture an opinion about how a player is penalized by some archaic rule. To be honest I hate the game won't watch it and see it as a major waste of time and money. Also my opinion but it will also frame how some of my other opinions are formed.

The total opposite can be said for one that loves golf. That being said some will share their opinions vociferously for a thing they love even if goes way past the point of aggravation. Whereas for something they hate they will walk away before getting too aggravated because the level of hate for the thing isn't a driver to keep going.

I speak of things in the general sense as individuals are very unique.

But your desire to push debates and logical arguments is what fuels most of the aggravations, we can all have opinions even when they are in opposition to each other. You need to respect that of others, IMO.

Ed

Thanks for the response. I love the golf illustration. In golf the spectators aren't allowed to play the game though. In fact, spectators in any sport aren't allowed on the field. In a debate the field is open to anyone who wishes to play but if you come onto the field you better be ready to play at the level of the other players. Imagine a football game where the fans could come out and line up against the defense of Green Bay. The play goes off and they are flattened. You have any sympathy for them? Yes, but not for their thinking they were prepared to do anything but get flattened. You might pity them for the hospital bills, but that's about it. If you enter into a debate you better know the level of your opponents abilities. Otherwise, cheer all you want from the sidelines, but stay off the field.

I agree that a lot of people think they can just throw out their opinions on this or that and should not have to endure somebody disagreeing with them, strongly or not. But it's a bit like going to a public rock concert and turning up your country-western boom box in the middle of the crowd. Yes, if it's an open venue (a public park), you can do that, but why would you expect the people around you to voice some objections? If I post a long and logical thread on this or that and you come along and shout some irrational response (I exaggerate for sake of emphasis, as most replies are not completely irrational), should you voice get equal weight in the discussion? Should I not respond and point out the failures of your response? The thing is debate is about conflict-- two or more points of views in conflict. If you get aggravated by conflict stay out of it.

In addition, I agree that sometimes people want to "win" a debate. I'm not one of them, or at least I try not to be. That's why you begin a debate with the idea that "I can be wrong," and mean it. It's just good sportsmanship to go out on the field, play the best game you can, and if at the end the other team has a higher score, you say they won. It's a simple as that. But you don't go storming off the field because you can't execute a play, the other team has better players and you are out of your league. You don't go crying to the public complaining about how it was all unfair and the refs were biased and so on and so on. Those who just toss in their opinions without a lot of thought and then get upset when they get stomped on should realize they were just in over their heads and stop attacking the character of the opposing players. The fact that the other player is a jerk means nothing if he's also just a better quarterback than you.

Pushing the debates and logical arguments is how you end debates. Each side digs deeper and deeper, examining each others logic and premises until some kind of understanding comes about. In this they either get to some set of premises that can't be logically proven to be true or not -- leading to an impasse -- or they come to premises upon which they agree and logically build to an agreed upon conclusion. It's hard work and if you don't have the stomach for it nobody is dragging you into it. But once you start you do owe it to the others to be honest if you haven't thought the question through and maybe you could be wrong. Once you get to that point bow out gracefully. It's quite acceptable to leave the field rather than sit there getting flattened every play.

But of course, by that time most people are aggravated. Aggravation, in my opinion, is often a form of embarrassment. They are embarrassed that they don't have the arguments or logic needed to refute the other side and that's usually because they are so committed to their point of view they just assumed it was right and didn't do their homework before spouting off. Once they meet a forceful counter argument they realize they may have been duped by just assuming their argument was right but out of embarrassment, try to bluff their way through with half thought out ideas and opinions. In this they are sometimes just trying to save face and the more they speak the worse and more aggravated they become. It's kind of sad.

So where are the mistakes? 1) entering into a debate/discussion with the assumption that you are right -- or that what you've received from your social group is automatically right. 2) entering into a debate thinking it's about winning -- it's about discovering the truth by having "iron sharpen iron" the "iron" being ideas well thought out. 3) It's about staying out of it if you don't wish to do the work -- yes, have all the opinions you want, but don't expect those who are passionately engaged in the actual subject at hand to ignore your opinions and to not point out where you might just be wrong. 4) It's realizing that while you can side step the issue at hand by personal attacks and side issues, you aren't doing yourself or anyone any good -- deal with the issue at hand with reason, logic, and evidence, and leave your distaste for the opposition at the door.

Finally, sorry my response was long. I appreciate the calm and rational response you made and hope my own response to that isn't too "over the top."

AJ

 

[StarLoad]

AJ, I do hear and understand what you are saying, and for the most part, I would say you are correct if this was a debate class or even one of philosophy. However, I had a Prof that insisted we could only speak once in a session and only to one person and only to one item and had to listen for the remainder.
I will say that at first, this was very hard as I had a response to everyone, but having "wasted my turn" I had to keep silent. The next session was also hard as I had saved my turn but there were so many things I wanted to blurt out, but the 1,1,1 rule limited me, and I was getting very agitated at the imposed restrictions. By the third session, I had changed my attitude as I had come to realize the lesson was to improve the skills of listening and when given the chance to speak to make the best of it as was possible, knowing you could not expect to win the argument or even sway an opinion. The best you could expect was to make your point in the most efficient way to the group in hopes that the message gets across. Even after several weeks of the class many never understood the way to succeed and would leave the class mumbling about how stupid it was. Only to return the next time and repeat the process.
That class has allowed me to see the online forum in the same manner, and many of the "players" do the same thing every time and hence get aggravated. Even I fall into the trap of "feeling like I must respond" as if I were defending a maidens honor. This trap is a failure of human nature as we feel like we must step in to defend the week, wronged or oppressed.

AJ you are very smart and logical in your "arguments" and "reasonings" but that is often lost on others, and that is wasted to both parties. Indeed, this waste can often lead to the aggravations you seek to avoid and may even increase them as you get aggravated for others not getting it and the other(s) get aggravated for you pushing what they clearly don't agree with. I call this a lose\lose argument. Seldom can we get more than 80% agreement on issues and that 20% if vocal enough will derail the best of arguments.

That Prof gave me an "A" for the class and in discussions, he explained that 95% of the time the words we use matter none, so make the best of the 5% that do matter every time. AJ, I challenge you to focus on that 5% and make the best of it.
ED