What ever happened to Debating an issue?

Question

When and why did people start with the name calling instead of honestly debating the issues? You know: Dirty Liberals or Dirty Neocons, or things along those lines. And why are there so many questions with False Data and no Sources?
Do any of you think we will ever get back to Honest Debates?

This is a question from a Tired Independent

Answer 1

I don't know. People would prefer to belittle each other rather than have an honest debate.

Answer 2

Most party people whether they be dems or republicans are just that, party above everything. As an independent myself for at least the past dozen years I often wonder why America settles for the same old tired rhetoric, especially when nothing ever gets done with the issues, they remain unsolved. Take this current comprehensive immigration issue that was supposed to have been resolved in 86' and obviously wasn't. Nothing was done after the 86' legislation and once again here we are with the same problems only on a bigger scale and once again we are hearing the same rhetoric. Watch and see, nothing will be done. We have become so split we don't vote for people, we vote against others. It also doesn't help that once elected our officials start down their merry path of self-servitude and lip service. I say vote out all incumbents every election until they get the message we are tired of their crap.

Answer 3

Hear, Hear.
I totally agree with your statement. I am tired of questions cloaked in bias, agenda and uninformed content.
Name calling is a device people use when they know they cannot rationally argue their point, in order to demote another's contribution. Such childish arguments are on the level of the emotional - school yard politics.
They clearly have never learnt or even heard of the age old art of debate and rhetoric.
In an ideal world, people would debate issues without stooping to such levels - and we would have honest, adult and informative discourse.
People should realise it is okay to back away from a previously held conviction - if new evidence or insight from others prove your beliefs wrong.
I wish people would make themselves aware of such things, as well as referencing, sourcing and validity.
Thank you for highlighting this issue.

Answer 4

Because a lot of people from all political backgrounds appear to resort to flinging mud rather than getting down to debating the real issues or even researching a specific point. Once we get past the name calling maybe we could actually start to make this world a better place to live.

Answer 5

Not in this sandbox. Not ever.

Here, you have grown adults acting like adolescents, flinging slurs and epithets for entertainment.

Actually, I'd gladly PAY to participate in a forum where moderators would throw out miscreants who resort to insults.

The First Amendment is not an open invitation to just be as blatantly insulting as possible.

Rational, fact-filled argumentation is one of civilization’s greatest achievements.
All people in a free society benefit when discourse is civil, which means that it should be reasoned, fact-filled, literate, specific, and respectful of the moral standards of the majority.

Honesty doesn't mean a complete gut-spilling, nor does it require that harsh or cruel words be used to convey one's honest thoughts.

Thoughts or opinions need not be expressed in the most offensive way.

Answer 6

I agree. There should be series of debates covering specific issues, not these where a candidate only has 2 minutes to discuss a complex issue like illegal immigration or foreign policy. I would have them more often, free, and then put spending limits, close loopholes on campaign and lobbyist contributions.

Answer 7

Without a standard of arguement, there's no means of controlling the method which it evolves. The internet and modern tv show that. They tend to be more sensational, and they focus less on content.

Look at the nature of our modern culture....Jerry Springer, '___is not the father' shows, and various political pundits whom will say outrageous things to get their book sold.

The paradigm will have to change or atleast the serious must be involved in something of a higher caliber. Something that will involve reasonable standards and will engage upon the most knowledgeable. I'm not sure if we'll ever have the masses engaged in this sort of political discourse, and to be frankly honest....I'm not sure it would matter.

America's Constiution was developed mostly in secret. It was a bunch of intelligient and influential aristrocrats that happened to support a theory of government. I think it happens to be one of the best theories out there, imho.

Lucky really...

I hope to see a day where there is an enviroment suitable for rigorous debate among the variety of intellectuals, and that impresses upon the influential. At times I think it would be best to be a more closed system (as that's how our consitution arised), but in the long-run I think it must be general accessible.

I tend to think there's a mind out there that may not be classically acceptable to the prevalent political theory, but may have a significant effect on the future of our world.

Are we listening....?

Part of me believes:

"Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interest, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us."--Ludwig von Mises

All things being realistic, most of us don't concern ourselves with that depth of thought; we have more pressing issues in our lives, to extend any further. I don't blame society or the individual for that, but I hope those whom know....use their mind to better the world.

They may fail or have an unforseen problem arising from their thought, but if their contribution adds a spark to that one mind...well, then you have something worth the effort and time. We are dealing with the collective nature of knowledge.

Debate and continue to seek the truth and act on it. I believe in that, and I think your question is one that haunts me. But I think it's worth it.

; )

Answer 8

one of the 20th century's more well known philosophers [ya, I've forgotten who also] pointed out that there are two kinds of propositions ... ones that are provable and ones that aren't.

Provable propositions can be debated through the accumulation of evidence and the discussion of the validity of that evidence.

Evidence is useless for the other kind of propositions -- it is either not available ["prove that Jesus committed the miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead."], or no evidence can be accumulated ["my social system out performs yours"] within a reasonable time period. {Or acumulating evidence would be grossly inhumane -- human experimentation such as withholding partly effective drugs in the search for more effective ones.}

Please look at the issues that, in your opinion, aren't being debated. Are they provable at all?

***
What usually happens with non-provable propositions is that people argue over their pre-conceived notions. Religion is this way. The vast majority of people will NEVER change their fundamental religious beliefs -- because there is no currently available evidence for the truth of any religion.

So we persist in behaving and believing what we learned as 10 year olds. {Did you think there was no reason for the focus of all major religions on teaching their children? Ha! They all jump on the chance to ingrain their belifs into kids who aren't old enough to understand that there are other possibilities and can't yet imagine what a different religion might be like.}

***
What are the biggest problems in Africa and the Middle East?

Imho, the major (and almost unspoken) issue is that Europe and Asia have succeeded in forging nations out of tribes while Africa and the Middle East have not.

Tribalism is still running rampant in both Africa and the Middle East. My tribe bashes your tribe to seize control of land [think Gaza here] and thus your tribe works furiously to get revenge.

Who is looking out for the people as a whole?

Under tribalism, no one.

***
I have this 'little' theory that the laws of evolution apply to social organisms as well as genetic organisms. If so, what may be going on in the world is the Darwinian decline of tribalism at the hands of nationalism or even pan-humanism.

Of course, Darwinian evolution posits the extinction of the losing organisms .. or at least their confinement into ever decreasing spheres of influence.

If this applies to social organisms such as tribal societies [amybe another unprovable propostion], what you are seeing is the furious attempt of tribalism to prove that it is not extinct.

The brutal and violent attempt to prove it is still alive and growing.


Woe to humanity.

For one thing, tribalism seems to opposed to economic growth. And it seems that many, if not an absolute majority, of the world's peoples are totally agreed that we will have economic growth no matter who or what is in the way.


Stay tuned for further developments.

:-)

Answer 9

I don't understand what's happened. There has been so much disregard for the community guidelines lately, I'm really getting tired of it. I hope we CAN get back to honest debates on here.

Answer 10

I have gotten to the point that I am pretty selective about the questions I answer. If they are baiting, hatefully presented, and full of anger, I avoid them. The totally inane ones can be fun sometimes.
I would like to see more adult, intelligent debate of the issues.
We are all in it together so we need to work together.

Answer 11

Remarkably the Planet Rugby forum is very good for political debates..

Far better than this place..(and no I am not kidding).