Rarely Constructive
I (being the RTB’s official trouble maker) engage in debate with other folks in their site’s comments section sometimes. It’s clean fun and most of the time I am content with the fact that we agree to disagree. However, it is very rare that anything constructive comes from this activity. In any political debate, you rarely change the other person’s mind. It is an exercise in futility, in most cases.
And here’s why:
Rhetoric, insults and unproductive content: Invariably, when you disagree with someone, people will insult you or engage in rhetoric. For example in my recent bout over at LeanLeft, I asserted that:
Bush did not wear a military uniform because it lacked insignias, ranks, honors, etc. I asserted it was definitely militaristic.
I also asserted that Bush landing on the aircraft carrier was a waste of taxpayer dollars and a publicity stunt. I also asserted that other politicians engaged in the same type of publicity stunts at a cost to taxpayers yet certain folks aren’t as quick to recognize that as well.
Someone then calls me a wingnut (apparently popular rhetoric from the left) and implies I was defending Dubya. Such a comment contributes little to constructive debate. The right is guilty of this as well by calling people un-American when it is uncalled for. Even I have an affection for calling certain lefties tree-huggers.
But they didn’t address my assertions. However, other folks did in a respectful manner.
Assumptions: Each side of a political debate often has assumptions about a particular issue and these assumptions are not always shared. It is often times fallacious to make these assumptions and it is always fallacious to assume that your opposition shares these assumptions with you.
As an example, in the epic battle of SouthKnoxBubba vs. Bill Hobbs (this war is waged in the comments section over at Bubba’s daily), there was debate about Republicans’ and Democrats’ respective records on civil rights (click comments). Essentially, each side tried to assert that their party had a better record. The problem is that they are comparing apples to oranges. Some Democrats equate entitlement programs (affirmative action, welfare, etc.) as civil rights. Most Republicans do not. And this is a matter of debate, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that one who opposes entitlement also opposes civil rights.
If you wish to have a productive debate, you’ll likely have to agree and define a set of assumptions. You need to make sure that you are comparing apples to apples.
Party Politics: Self explanatory. People will defend or scold the same action depending on which party the person committing the action belongs to. I promise you, if something surfaces about Dubya’s penis, the Democrats would be all over it.
Party politics will damn the republic.
Take political debate with a grain of salt, and odds are you’re not going to change anyone’s mind. But it is fun as hell.
