The Futility and Fruitility of Debates, and the Inefficiency of Social Media

Debate is important. Debate helps us shape our own arguments and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of opposing views. Debate can help develop positional growth and adaptation. Debate is civics in action on matters that matter. Debates can bear fruit.

Unfortunately, debates can be also acts of futility. Many studies have shown that confirmation bias, the perseverance of one's worldview (it's uncomfortable to suspend one's beliefs to consider opposing views, even if only to understand them), and the tendency to look for the easiest answers in support of our preconceptions, all hinder the progression of dialogue. What often ends up happening is circular argumentation and the excessive use of logical fallacies (especially the red herring, straw men, and ad hominem fallacies) as points that deflect counter claims and preserve our own positions. It becomes a tit for tat contest of one-upping an opponent, more than it is about discovering new data or reconsidering one's own claims. The opposing field has already been judged as wanting when the role of debate is to spew one's own dogma.

The worst place for this is social media, because sometimes there's anonymity, which allows for our attacks without accountability. And, there's always a sense of superiority in social media, because it's a platform that caters to one's egos and interests. And usually, friends -- people we associate with who have like-minds -- will back us up. Or, we tend to play the part of a troll and domineer a conversation by employing -- even inadvertently -- tactics like logical fallacies. Plus, since social media isn't an adequate research platform, we normally just posit quick responses and our evidences are usually only links to media sources that support our presuppositions.

I fall into this pathetic pattern of social media debating sometimes. Even though I try to remain objective, cite scholarly or at least neutral sources, and I avoid the pitfalls of bias and logical fallacy, I am not perfect and likely slip up in my own debating. I think its the pathway of social media that is not only designed for this pattern, but its algorithms support it. 

I have addressed these pitfalls in the past, so my aim is not to rehash the futility of modern debate, but to demonstrate that we could all do better to bring civility back to the conversation. It means that when we start a debate, we should abide by some generally agreeable rules. Here's my suggestion for eleven simple rules to follow:

1. Don't belittle or discredit your opponent.

2. Don't push presumptions, suspicions, or gut feelings as facts. State them as what they are.

3. If claiming something is a fact, cite your sources (preferably with a link).

4. Avoid polemical or divisive sources like skewed news sites such as OAN, Epoch, Newsmax, and Fox on the Right, and Vox, TYT, and even CNN on the Left. If used, note why and try to verify content with supporting sources. Better news sources are NPR, AP, BBC. and Reuters for middle ground. Scholarly sources are even better. 

5. Stick to one item of discussion at a time: avoid rabbit trails and red herring arguments. 

6. Don't discount the sincerity of your opponent; find points of affirmation.    

7. Look for common ground and negotiate.

8. Less is more (hard for me to admit this), so don't lay all your cards out on a single topic in one overwhelming response.

9. Be willing to agree to disagree and disagree agreeably. 

10. Be willing to pause and allow the other time to respond, without imputing bad motive. It's OK to take breaks to re-evaluate claims and counterclaims. Let discussions take days and weeks even, especially if the topic is important.

11. Suspend your disbelief. Nobody's asking that positions be abandoned, but we should be willing to relinquish control long enough to look at issues from angles not our own. 

With all that said, I think debates that are often futile can become fruitile (my own term).

Blessings y'all.