frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Civil disagreement Vs. Dogmatic disagreement

Debate Information

When it comes to things like politics, identity, and religion, actual logical thought is rare.

When thoughtful, open-minded people have a discussion, there are only three outcomes.
  1. person A tells person B something and they agree.
  2. person A tells person B something and person B disagrees for certain reasons.
  3. person A tells person B something and person B agrees with some parts and disagrees with others.
When dogmatic close-minded individuals (or a thoughtful and a dogmatic individual) have a discussion, there is only one outcome
  1. person A tells person B something and they disagree without providing reasons, usually resorting to name calling, harassment, logical fallacies, or sometimes physical violence.
When it comes to political matters, it seems like 80-90% of people believe what they do for no reason in particular, and can't defend it adequately in most situations. The remaining people are sometimes beholden to one political ideology or group, but on the whole are willing to compromise and actually think about what they want and why.

The worst subjects are usually the ones that have no right answer, and can not be proven subjectively one way or the other. At this point, values become the determining factor in what should be done and values are not rigid and set across the population. In other words, values are relative.

Take this example: Let's say you and three of your friends find a pile of money. (don't think about it too much) Now you are tasked with what to do with it.
  • Friend 1 says "We should divide it equally among ourselves"
  • Friend 2 says "There is enough here we could invest it and get a return in a few years"
  • Friend 3 says "If we pool the money together, we could buy something nice we could all share"
Is there any way to claim that any of these are logically superior to the others?

I think the answer is a strong no, and at the end of the day it is impossible to make a decision that doesn't come down to some subjective interpretation of what is best.

If this group of friends are civil in this disagreement, they will probably come to a conclusion that is nothing like what any of them individually proposed, for example maybe they decide to divide a quarter of the money equally, invest the rest with the agreement that it will be used for something nice when the investments have matured. No one gets exactly what they wanted but everyone walks away happy. For critical thinkers, it isn't about the ideas themselves, it's about finding the best solutions.

If the friends were dogmatic however, the outcome might be completely different. No compromises will be made or thought put into it, and odds are everyone will be disappointed. For dogmatic individuals, the ideas are inseparable from their sense of identity.

Despite this, sometimes it helps to be dogmatic. If you believe something and you are unwilling to compromise, then you might just be able to convince someone that your position is absolutely right, so long as the other is open minded to what you are suggesting. If the other is close minded however, they might just end up becoming more dogmatic and entrenched when faced against others who just don't seem to want to listen. I believe that this process has been a major factor that made the internet and the modern political landscape the hostile battleground that it currently is, and until people learn to think critically about things it will never change.
smoothieMayCaesar
At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life 
developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

All of that so we can argue about nothing.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    I think people (all of them, including us) have a very poor understanding of what "truth" actually means. Sam Harris suggested that truth is characterised by something that is independent of the individual perspective, but even that does not really get to the core of it, as it merely says something about what truth is not. What is truth?

    On a very deep level, nothing we can say is strictly true, as all of our statements come from our limited perspective and are inherently flawed. But putting philosophy aside and getting to the practical side of it, there are some statements that can be classified as true. The ingredients of a true statement are:
    1. A set of assumptions.
    2. A logical conclusion from those assumptions.
    1 is crucial, and is something most people miss. When they get into arguments, they usually have different assumptions, hence they come to different conclusions - but since they never specify those assumptions, they are not really arguing about what truth is. Yet they think they do, because each of them believes that their assumptions are fundamentally true. But that cannot be the case: the assumptions, by definition, cannot be either true or false, they are just what they are.

    Here is an example of a true statement: "If 2+2=3, 3+3=6 and summation is distributive and associative, then 2+2+2+2=6". Now, one could say, "But wait, 2+2+2+2=6 is false!" Well, when they make this statement, then they fundamentally reject the assumption that 2+2=3. However, assuming that assumption is true, the conclusion is also true.
    This is something not many people fully internalise, as it goes against their natural conditioning getting them to jump to conclusions. Yet internalising it is absolutely crucial for being able to seek truth in any meaningful sense. Assumptions can contradict anything we know about the world, yet the conclusion can still be true!

    There cannot be truth without assumptions. Anything one can possibly argue has to be connected to some agreed upon statements, and if that is not the case, then the entire argument is hanging in the air, disjointed from any logical thread.

    In social debates, many people confuse truth with subjective quality judgements. Take the eternal individualism vs collectivism debate. Which of these two is "better"? Depends on one's assumptions. Individualism generally appeals to people who highly value individual freedoms and opportunities, and collectivism generally appeals to people who highly value human cooperation and collaboration. And what appeals to the person ultimately comes down to their individual psychology, and that psychology cannot be put into any logical box and has to be taken as a set of axioms, the most fundamental assumptions. If I get incredible pleasure and joy out of travelling around the world on my own and feel uncomfortable travelling with a group of other people, then nothing you can possibly say will get me to agree that travelling with others is preferable: this is not what my axioms state, and I cannot change those axioms without strongly altering my psychology.

    I would like to see more arguments of the following kind: "This, this and this are my fundamental values. As a consequence, this is what I believe in." Rather than, "This is what I believe in, and if you disagree with me, then you are wrong, evil and ".
    Happy_Killbot
  • @MayCaesar ;

    Here is an example of a true statement: "If 2+2=3, 3+3=6 and summation is distributive and associative, then 2+2+2+2=6". Now, one could say, "But wait, 2+2+2+2=6 is false!" Well, when they make this statement, then they fundamentally reject the assumption that 2+2=3. However, assuming that assumption is true, the conclusion is also true.
    This is something not many people fully internalise, as it goes against their natural conditioning getting them to jump to conclusions. Yet internalising it is absolutely crucial for being able to seek truth in any meaningful sense. Assumptions can contradict anything we know about the world, yet the conclusion can still be true!

    The debate on you example is a part of fix equation by it use of logic. A formidable debate would be along the lines of  1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4, 2 + 2 = 2, 3 + 3 + 3 = 3, true. Summation is distributive and associative then 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 4, " But wait 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 does = 8 as a true sum as well, when we make a statement of summation, united state. Assumptions can contradict anything we know about the world, yet the conclusion can still be true!  When anyone ever addresses a debate saying they do not believe in constitution the first conclusion made is that a belief in losing basic principles is a necessity. Hiding a focus of pointy is not the same as addressing the point in question brought forward with a basic principle that equal translates on any concern of disagreement in united state. A democracy can be used to form some United State not every or all united state.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch