The Debate Fallacy

Debate should be an Olympic sport. Armed with your words, your orchestration, and your wit (all intangibles), it is a raw and visceral way of competing without literally taking one to the schnoz. Your counterpart is out for the same outcome as you are. In competitive debate, those who deem you the winner see your performance in the same caliber as an expert pugilist. The veritable human game of chess, if you’d like.

Anywhere in media you look as it pertains to debate, there is no real overall feeling of “may the best orator win,” even though civility and sportsmanship would like to think it still exists. It’s more of “rip their fucking head off!” Whether it is in cinema (Legal Eagles, A Few Good Men, 8 Mile, Old School), any MMA prefight media scrum, or any WWE microphone non-wrestling verbal advancing of the storylines where you already have your protagonist picked out in your mind, well before it is their turn to talk. Never is your opinion swayed for your anticipated victor in your mind, all the pundits are wrong, and you just want your competitor to win.

I’ve mentioned before in the book “How to Win Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie the quote “A person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still.” What does that mean? It means that no matter how full of bulletholes you make someone else’s argument or position, you won’t be winning them over to your side. Be it pride, be it stubbornness, be it you could be wrong anyway. You’re just not going to win them over no matter how correct you may be.

While both sides are able to demonstrate their preparation in the debate, other externalities can also come rising to the top. Such as subtle jabs at the opponent that may appeal to an ooga-booga region of the spectator’s frontal lobe (think the Biden vs. Trump debate). Posturing, preening, and other-non verbal cues that allow for it to turn into a spectacle, that could make the logical loser come out on top. It is very possible that a skilled competitor in a debate could just be out to make their counterpart look weak, with little or no regard to actually winning the contest, “winning” the contest with those who like the approach of not playing by the unwritten rules of gallantry and respect. I know at some point, a threshold is crossed where said staunch spectators are thinking to themselves “boy, they really showed him/her!” As if the other competitor and their cause needs to be banished and forgotten about, with not even a morsel of their logic to penetrate the shield of the made up mind, even prior to the engagement.

As humans, a lot of us pass through a stage in maturity where we relish moments oftentimes referred to as “gotcha” moments. In my time on this planet, I can vouch as having passed through it, and I also don’t find such moments appealing any more. They don’t interest me in the least bit to see someone get eviscerated verbally in any format, medium, or capacity. I don’t care to see two evenly matched combatants squaring off to see who can shoot the others’ arguments full of holes because the outcome won’t sway anyone one way or another. That’s just me. Don’t take my opinion to heart though, you do you.

What happens when one builds a following based on all of these gotcha moments? Those admirers that are picked up along the way eventually turn into a collective of likeminded enthusiasts. Maybe obsequious followers. But what is sacred to them, based on what appealed to them to become a staunch supporter?

Once the quantity of enthusiasts grows to a certain amount, what kind of responsibility is imparted onto the debate competitor to influence them to just “do the right thing?” or how to influence them to stay within the protocols of decency?

I guess with humans - if we look at Newton’s first law (the one about an object in motion staying in motion unless acted upon by an outside force) and apply it to the human condition, it should be augmented with “and should a strong enough outside force try to sway you from the inertia of your convictions, your convictions will grow by 10 times, minimum.”

Again, a person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still.

Why doesn’t logic prevail? Because as humans, we’re still too primitive to let shit like tribalism go. It may be offensive to say that we like our ooga-booga parts of our brains stimulated. Like “are you calling me an ape???”

Well, yeah.

The homo sapiens species, yes. Don’t believe me? Go to the zoo and spend some time in the ape exhibits. Make sure bonobos are among the apes present. All of the people who believe that the planet is only a few thousand years old especially should go, and spend a few hours there, observing them all. I’ve covered this in previous posts.

We must be self aware to the point to where if we feel we are triggering each other, to stop and curtail the feelings of rage that starts easily flowing through our veins. As soon as those feelings begin. And we ALL bear that responsibility. All of us. You. Me (especially). And the other 8 billion people on our planet. This notion of “but they’re too soft” needs to stop. Honorable mention goes to “but they’re too stupid!”

The gratitude lies in knowing when to shut the fuck up. And keep the fuck shut. We have to remember that so many people are at their wit's end and breaking point, no matter their cause. I don’t need to get into it with someone who could likely alter my family’s future just over a topical disagreement. Topical not in the substance, but because I may never otherwise see said individual again, so why escalate? Those who learn to shut the fuck up earlier in life will be wiser than their contemporaries in older age.

Be strong enough to be gentle.