Does any good come from contradicting someone's reality?
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
Have you changed your mind through debate? If not, it would hardly be reasonable to expect others to.
When two honest people debate, very rarely do they make a significant change in their position then and there, but it is equally rare for them to walk away without having come to a greater understanding, either of their position, or that of another.
I debate for two reasons. One is to change the minds of others. This has, actually, worked on occasion. Most of the time not, but I've had a number of people concede a point here or there. No one has ever said "Wow, I'm completely wrong!", but you very often plant a seed that germinates through time.
The other reason, and perhaps the more important, is to test my own ideas. Only through testing them against those wishing to tear them down can your ideas me made more certain, stronger.
And yes, I have, on a number of issues, changed my position as a result of debating with people. It's not even all that uncommon.
I always thought the purpose of debate was to make your opponent look stupid. I have never thought that anything constructive comes from it or that people give the views of others full consideration.
There is an exception though. The exception is that the debate can be constructive if undecided people are watching because they might consider the substance of the arguments being presented, but 1 on 1 debates with no witnesses are pointless in my opinion.
If people aren't in disagreement and unwilling to change their opinion, then they are having a discussion when discussing differing views. If they are debating and insulting each other, they are having an argument.
Discussion>Debate>Argument>Fist-Fight
There is an exception though. The exception is that the debate can be constructive if undecided people are watching because they might consider the substance of the arguments being presented, but 1 on 1 debates with no witnesses are pointless in my opinion.
If people aren't in disagreement and unwilling to change their opinion, then they are having a discussion when discussing differing views. If they are debating and insulting each other, they are having an argument.
Discussion>Debate>Argument>Fist-Fight
I change my mind in debate all the time.
I'm bored with that. I've moved on to arguing the points contrary to my own beliefs and defending them.
Remind me not to debate you.
I've noticed that very few third party people bother to read through other people's debates.
Do you always give a clear signal to your opponent that you have done so? If not, isn't it possible that your opponent may change their mind without saying so? Many change their minds but don't wish to admit it in the moment, for pride, or other reasons.
I try to do so. I acknowledge that myself and others often need time to let our egos settle down before we can incorporate new knowledge.
Exactly... advocate indifference... debate is fucking worthless.
Especially with INFJs... we're too adamant in our belief and value systems.
Especially with INFJs... we're too adamant in our belief and value systems.
Last edited:
I enjoy debating topics because debates build upon the foundations of my ideas/beliefs. Usually flaws in my beliefs will come to light within a debate that I may not have considered. If so, I admit defeat on that aspect and move on to the next, until I have debated as many aspects I or the other person can think of and then I am able to reach, what I would consider, a more thoroughly thought out conclusion. And yes, the way I and the other person/people go about it, it is definitely a debate and not a discussion, even borderlines an argument at times. But we all feel good in the end that we got to passionately stand by our beliefs. Idk, it just feels like there's more worth in a belief once you've argued it's point, stuck by it loyally and given it a good pollish along the way.
It's no good trying to change the mind of someone who's lived too long though. People get to a stage where they're absolutely set in their ways and all you can do is look at them and come to the conclusion that no, you don't want to be like that or yes, that seems like a good idea. I only debate with open minded people or a narrow minded person who has the particular perspective I'm looking for. For me a debate is all about learning and finding out what made the person believe what they've chosen to believe, then I form my opinion as to whether it's applicable and on what level.
So I usually only contradict people to learn from them.
It's no good trying to change the mind of someone who's lived too long though. People get to a stage where they're absolutely set in their ways and all you can do is look at them and come to the conclusion that no, you don't want to be like that or yes, that seems like a good idea. I only debate with open minded people or a narrow minded person who has the particular perspective I'm looking for. For me a debate is all about learning and finding out what made the person believe what they've chosen to believe, then I form my opinion as to whether it's applicable and on what level.
So I usually only contradict people to learn from them.
People opinions can be influenced through diplomatic skills. And it can be trained to be more effective like any other skill.
If you failed to influence even if you know that your position is right then it's either:
- a communication failure
- your position is wrong but your opponent is not skilled in persuading
- you or your opponent is extremely close-minded
Debating is almost an art: to be effective you need to adapt a correct strategy according to a situation. The same method can work very well on some people and be ineffective on others.
If you failed to influence even if you know that your position is right then it's either:
- a communication failure
- your position is wrong but your opponent is not skilled in persuading
- you or your opponent is extremely close-minded
Debating is almost an art: to be effective you need to adapt a correct strategy according to a situation. The same method can work very well on some people and be ineffective on others.
S
Shai Gar
Oh, he's tactful. If you want intellectual snobbishness, go to INTPCentral. if you want to see true tactlessness, go to ENTP.org
I've had to learn two important things on the subject of debating with people.
- When people become emotionally invested in their opinion, right or wrong, an attack on that opinion is an attack on their emotions and ego. Attacking people's emotions and ego will always put a strain on any relationship, regardless of the intentions of the attack.
- When people feel that their emotions and egos are attacked, they will defend their emotions and egos with their emotions and egos.
Combine these two things, and often the results are that relationships are considered secondary to the subject of the debate, but also that people will bolster their opinions for the duration of a debate - appearing to not give in - only to change their minds some time later after their emotions and egos have had a chance to recover.
The question then becomes, how far can the debate go before it strains the relationship and is that far enough to make a point that can be seen once the debate is over? If the answer is yes, then it is worth it to continue a debate. If the answer is no, then it is not worth risking a relationship, and waiting for another opportunity to present itself (if any) is the wiser and more efficient course of action because the other party is unlikely to ever see your point anyway. There is no need to add the loss of a friendship to the issue.
I think you make excellent and insightful points. Please continue. You've certainly gotten me to consider a great deal of things that I never would have otherwise.
- When people become emotionally invested in their opinion, right or wrong, an attack on that opinion is an attack on their emotions and ego. Attacking people's emotions and ego will always put a strain on any relationship, regardless of the intentions of the attack.
- When people feel that their emotions and egos are attacked, they will defend their emotions and egos with their emotions and egos.
Combine these two things, and often the results are that relationships are considered secondary to the subject of the debate, but also that people will bolster their opinions for the duration of a debate - appearing to not give in - only to change their minds some time later after their emotions and egos have had a chance to recover.
The question then becomes, how far can the debate go before it strains the relationship and is that far enough to make a point that can be seen once the debate is over? If the answer is yes, then it is worth it to continue a debate. If the answer is no, then it is not worth risking a relationship, and waiting for another opportunity to present itself (if any) is the wiser and more efficient course of action because the other party is unlikely to ever see your point anyway. There is no need to add the loss of a friendship to the issue.
I think you make excellent and insightful points. Please continue. You've certainly gotten me to consider a great deal of things that I never would have otherwise.
Last edited:
I've also wondered about the point of debating and have also almost never seen anyone change their views. I've changed mine drastically over the past ten years, so I know it happens. It really struck me once when I revisited a philosophy site I used to post on years ago. When I returned a few years later the exact same people were debating the same topics and defending the same positions. The only difference I noted was that they seemed more deeply entrenched in their positions.
I think one motivation to enter debates for people is to demonstrate their superior knowledge and reasoning. The motivation is not to learn. Because of this the style of debate tends to focus on making the other person feel disrespected in the presence of superior knowledge. When placed in that position a person has to set aside personal ego, feelings, and be willing to consider an alternate framework for viewing reality. It's a lot to ask of someone.
The most effective way I have learned to teach and introduce new ideas is to first actually listen to the other person's ideas with some respect. I realize all ideas are not worthy of equal respect, but there is a strong human drive to mirror whatever they are presented with. The respect comes when you realize there is some reason this person holds this view and you listen carefully enough to understand how they arrived at the view. If you disrespect someone, they will return it. If you refuse to listen, they will not listen in response. If you smile, they are more likely to smile back, and if you listen and consider a new viewpoint, they are more likely to listen and consider.
I think one motivation to enter debates for people is to demonstrate their superior knowledge and reasoning. The motivation is not to learn. Because of this the style of debate tends to focus on making the other person feel disrespected in the presence of superior knowledge. When placed in that position a person has to set aside personal ego, feelings, and be willing to consider an alternate framework for viewing reality. It's a lot to ask of someone.
The most effective way I have learned to teach and introduce new ideas is to first actually listen to the other person's ideas with some respect. I realize all ideas are not worthy of equal respect, but there is a strong human drive to mirror whatever they are presented with. The respect comes when you realize there is some reason this person holds this view and you listen carefully enough to understand how they arrived at the view. If you disrespect someone, they will return it. If you refuse to listen, they will not listen in response. If you smile, they are more likely to smile back, and if you listen and consider a new viewpoint, they are more likely to listen and consider.
I am only willing to enter a debate if I can feel safe that I will be debated with with respect for my view point as I will try and do the same for the other person.
If however one of my deepest most powerful values r being held in question, then I will stand firm and there is no debate, there is only the other person wasting both of our time and hurting my ears...
I will consider debating (but I prefer discussions) because I value 'live and let live' and 'agreeing to disagree' because in all honesty, I believe that listening REAL listening without bringing yrself into those words of another, is the only way to recieve a piece of another's truths. In time and life, u might find yrself ina situation where 'their' words can and may make a difference for u for the better...
What is the purpose of debate I ask myself... I guess several reasons but that would be for another thread...
But yes debate can be useful but only if done with respect for one an other, otherwise it becomes a scenerio of defensive vs defensive and then things have the potential to get dirty... not so cool with me as nothing is truly heard and learned other than both parties feel anger, frustration, rightousness and isolated in their beliefs.
Empathy man, it's the only way to live, and the only way to truly 'hear' another person's side.
If however one of my deepest most powerful values r being held in question, then I will stand firm and there is no debate, there is only the other person wasting both of our time and hurting my ears...
I will consider debating (but I prefer discussions) because I value 'live and let live' and 'agreeing to disagree' because in all honesty, I believe that listening REAL listening without bringing yrself into those words of another, is the only way to recieve a piece of another's truths. In time and life, u might find yrself ina situation where 'their' words can and may make a difference for u for the better...
What is the purpose of debate I ask myself... I guess several reasons but that would be for another thread...
But yes debate can be useful but only if done with respect for one an other, otherwise it becomes a scenerio of defensive vs defensive and then things have the potential to get dirty... not so cool with me as nothing is truly heard and learned other than both parties feel anger, frustration, rightousness and isolated in their beliefs.
Empathy man, it's the only way to live, and the only way to truly 'hear' another person's side.
Maybe I misunderstood the OP, but under what circumstances are these debates occurring? Christmas dinner with your great Aunt Marie? A co-worker? In a class? Online? I have a few friends who have different views than me when it comes to, say, marriage. I don't discuss marriage with them because the risk that they will misinterpret it as an attack upon their person is way too high to compromise a friendship.
Online? Give'em everything you've got. Even with people I'm friends with, because there it's clear that the debate is for intellectual purposes and not personally meant.
Then there's all the in between. The key is to get good at reading people, seeing when they start taking things personally and to be ready to back off and apologize or change your tactic when needed.
Online? Give'em everything you've got. Even with people I'm friends with, because there it's clear that the debate is for intellectual purposes and not personally meant.
Then there's all the in between. The key is to get good at reading people, seeing when they start taking things personally and to be ready to back off and apologize or change your tactic when needed.
I found that one of the best strategies to persuade people is to actually support their argument (or reality) 
That's right - it means helping them and not confronting at all. It has the following impact:
1) people do not become defensive
2) if their argument was right then you're doing the right thing
3) if they were wrong then by helping them soon you will both stumble upon undeniable proof - and your opponent will be persuaded
That's right - it means helping them and not confronting at all. It has the following impact:1) people do not become defensive
2) if their argument was right then you're doing the right thing
3) if they were wrong then by helping them soon you will both stumble upon undeniable proof - and your opponent will be persuaded
I take it you hiddenly mean me? xD
I don't think it is about changing anyones opinion. Its about seeing both sides and still choosing one that appeals to you the most after overweighing them. I think that a debate is to seek a higher truth, only that if two opposers argue what they think is the right one, then neither will change. One can Understand points, Respect opinions and contemplate the arguments but that doesnt mean that ones initial side changes.
I don't think it is about changing anyones opinion. Its about seeing both sides and still choosing one that appeals to you the most after overweighing them. I think that a debate is to seek a higher truth, only that if two opposers argue what they think is the right one, then neither will change. One can Understand points, Respect opinions and contemplate the arguments but that doesnt mean that ones initial side changes.