Is the term "civil debate" an oxymoron?

Heh. I'll talk to myself a bit. I joined this forum a week or so ago, maybe longer. I've not had a minute to think about much, or just play with words.

But there's a little break in the action of the 3-D world, so I'll the pick up the question I'd like to explore.

What's exactly civil about debate?

I guess we have to start by figuring out what we mean by "civil" and what we mean about "debate" first. I don't know if this is exactly a political topic, but it certainly is a media topic. I mean the headlines tell us every day that there's a horse race going on in American politics, and implicitly, because the headlines are running, that horse race must be important.

Important for what, exactly? Oops, I sort of changed the topic, but I think it folds back to the idea that our two party system assumes the idea of "civil debate."

When your debate is actually a discussion, then you have a civil exchange of thoughts and ideas.
In a debate, the idea is to win the debate. In a discussion, the idea is to share and learn through the exchange.

I won't debate with anybody. IMO, conversation should not be an emotional contact sport.

If the goal is to make the other person look stupid, probably not.

"conversation should not be an emotional contact sport"

"If the goal is to make the other person look stupid ...."

Yep. I see a likeminded thinker.

you already know what I think about debate, Kate... Good one Sky!

But now, "civil"... wasn't that the one Ghandi said would be a good idea?

I'm rather know for turning it into just that when provoked, but you're right, it shouldn't be.

There's no such thing as a winnable debate, for the same very reason that we hold any of our opinions in the first place: reason only plays a marginal role. You feel the way you feel about an issue because hat's what your gut tells you, and you later on gather the information to support your view. It seldom happens that someone serenely sits down, weighs the arguments for/against, and only THEN makes up his mind.

This might be, incidentally, why debate is so addictive: it gives one the (false) sense that one can control somebody else's basic emotional response to any issue.

Yup. - I tend to find that if I'm not emotionally attached to an issue (if my gut isn't involved) then I have very little interest in weighing up the pros and cons of that issue, or of involving myself in a debate about it. I may read on the subject, but form no opinion as to it's rightness or wrongness.


And it allows one to express the emotions one has connected to the issue at hand.


I get what Sky's saying about 'an emotional contact sport' and, yes, it is desirable to avoid the negative emotional contact which often comes during heated debate, but what of the positive emotions. - So often when I read others posts I'm touched by the amount of thought they've put into what they've written, by their passion. That's what keeps me coming back.

Oh, but I haven't answered Kate's question: Can debate be civil? - I think it can. An open exchange of views, a broadening of ones knowledge of a subject and a clearer understanding of opposing views and all desirale and beneficial. And no blood spilled!
Unless, of course one interprets 'civil' as meaning 'nice', 'without challenge', 'bland'.

Thanks, Karen-

I really appreciate the perspective about passion, and how without it, all that's left is bland. Every good novel has a protagonist and some kind of conflict that needs to get resolved.

With the idea of protagonist, I'm recalling an old chat, one I think I saved, about Roland Barthes, and ric (who I think joined this forum) was a key player in that discussion. I'll see if I can say something coherent about it eventually, but here's a link to one of the "hero" posts in that discussion: link

I don't think ric knows about this forum, Kate. But I believe he'd like it. I'll let him know about it. When he has the time he can really roll out some clear thinking about something. That was a good one in that link.

Karen, good to bring up the point about the importance of emotion in the discussions. We have this cultural bias in the West to diminish the importance of that key ingredient in favor of rational reason, which as Miles points out, really comes after the primary flare up that draws our attention.

I think, though, when I read "emotional contact sport" I didn't hear "no emotion" but rather the sport of playing other's emotions in a way that can leave "blood on the floor" as we put it sometimes. That's where we may find this fine line between determining whether a poster is out trolling around with emotion bait to see what can be caught, and someone genuinely interested in discussing a topic, both intellectually and with emotions.

Round here, you sometimes get civility. And you sometimes get debate. Once in a great while you get both. Mostly you get people screaming their prejudices.

That's probably been the state of things in every society throughout history, so I wouldn't get too worked up about it. You have to break tons of rock for a single diamond.

Like this?

My point was that debate is fine. Emotional and heated conversation is good stuff which I personally enjoy as much as I enjoy anything. But when one or more of the debaters resort to undercutting others with statements that have nothing to do with the conversation, that are intended to discredit the person, as opposed to the topic of the conversation or debate, then this I won't have any part of.

Making the claim that my argument is flawed because you consider the style of my clothes to be out of fashion, or if in an attempt to win at any cost you make the claim that because I part my hair this way I must be not very intelligent, if these things do not directly relate to the discussion or debate, then it's no longer a discussion and has become a forum for personal attacks. Or, an emotional contact sport.

Sarcasm in any debate or discussion has to be used with extreme caution. Sarcasm is characterized by counselors as being a form of "sideways anger". In other words, a way of sliding in an insult without actually saying it openly. To insult with the implication that you were kidding, however, the insult remains.

example:

He's just kidding, right? Unfortunately, once it's said it cannot be unsaid.

Jubal never kids. He's all business. I hear he once killed a man just for snoring too loud.

I once saw somebody kill a man, so I pretended to be asleep. Bad move, huh?

I'll say!

One must maintain standards.

See what I mean?!!??

He was snoring REALLY loud. And it was one of those disgusting, wet, slobbery snores, not just your basic dry snore.

Nobody missed him.

eek

Actually debates ARE civil, if they're not then they no longer are a debate http://www.actdu.org.au/archives/actein_si...ls.html#adebate

Hi Douglas,

LONG time no see!

Hej Miles, Thought I recognized your eek. btw, I don't think the charade that the current pres. candidates stage qualifies as a debate either, though they can tend to make one snore. note that last point, 'appropriate for age and education' ? Though the rules do state that qualification in regards to the debaters, since the television audience are the ones to be bluffed with this show, maybe the rule only applies to the audience in presidential debates.

I see you found the movement to a "civil" board, doug. I sent you an email, sometimes they don't get through to you.

edit: I take that back, I see you've been here since 2005. Four total posts!

Howdy and Welcome Doug!