Everyone has deep set beliefs that they will defend completely, but it would seem the majority of us lack a simple level of sense when it comes to expressing them in debate. Surely insulting your opponent is not the best course of action?

It has been interesting migrating from forums over to the blogosphere, especially in way of psychology. On forums you obviously get the trolls and spam-merchants in any decent debate thread, but you also get an awful lot of well reasoned arguments and often mini-debates waging between two or three members whilst the rest keep on topic. However on blogs the pecking order is slightly different. Comments invariably refer back to the original post, not the previous comments themselves. What this ultimately leads to is pages of similar arguments, identical questions and much less progression in debate.

However where debate does occur, especially as I find myself drawn towards the political or moral blogs, it invariably breaks down to finger pointing and that great Pratchett favourite: monkeys screaming louder be heard in the next tree. Each party ultimately just roots themselves within a particular argument, refusing to budge or acknowledge any form of defeat. Now I’m not saying this doesn’t happen on forums as well, heck it occurs in the real world all the time, but on blogs there is a tendency towards it and I think it comes down to poor debating skills.

Take for example this exert from a popular abortion post at the moment:

“It is funny how brainwashed people just spit out what they are told without thinking things through.”

Ouch! Now the rest of this bloggers post was pretty poorly concieved at any rate but the amount of this sort of “introduction” that you see is astounding. In this case it is the legality and morality of abortion that is being questioned; obviously a topic that affects every person in some way. It’s hard to not find yourself on one side of the argument or the other and many people hold very strong viewpoints. The purpose of commenting is to either put forth your views or attempt to sway others towards them, as is the case in any debate. Therefore to begin a comment by alienating a large proportion of the readers is going to instantly result in doing more damage to your argument than good.

It is hardly fair to expect everyone that enjoys blogging to be a good debater but many of the arguments put forth are actually quite persuasive if only they didn’t offend so badly. It is such a simple thing to begin a comment with a compliment rather than a grumble or sarcasm. No one reacts kindly to being told they’re an idiot, but tell them they’re arguments are well thought out but have they mulled over points A through D and they are far more likely to not only read your argument but also absorb some of it.

Of course it stems from a far worse issue, that of people extolling the virtue of opening the mind without practicing it themselves. I often find myself laughing at atheists who rip into theists with gusto, accusing them of everything from homophobia and racism to a lack of common sense without truly knowing the receiver and yet refuse even the most simple of facts that put their own beliefs into doubt1. The human psyche seems unfortunately hardwired to close-mindedness3 but also to self-defense. If you directly attack someones beliefs they will ignore your rationale, no matter how well developed or persuasive. Instead why not try a joint tactic of complimenting and suggesting next time, give the others arguments as much thought as your own and only then comment in a calm and polite manner. You will be amazed how much more effective that is.

“When you resort to attacking the messenger and not the message, you have lost the debate.” ~ Addison Whithecomb

1: the easiest example to mind is that of evolution. Show a Darwinist two results, both obtained by notable scientists, one that objects to evolutionary theory and the other that supports it. They will accept the latter with no issue, no questioning of data or methodology, but the former will be scrutinised minutely or just out right ignored, place upon “fluke”. The fact that both have been concluded under scientific methods and therefore by their very nature cannot be attributed to chance is ignored. It’s even funnier then pointing out the myriad flaws in the evolutionary supportive data and watching their anger rise. They simply cannot bring themselves to even open their minds a little to other theories…2
2: of course it should be pointed out that I am pro-evolution, so to say, yet my studies into creationism and other competing theories have shed light on an awful lot of bad practices within evolutionary science, misconceptions and out right lies that are still supported by the general scientific community, largely without realising it.
3: maybe as some form of defense mechanism against overloading? Or simply sloth, who knows.

Advertisement