Should I Debate Statists?

[FireShield]

I get my news from The Young Turks on YouTube, which, for those who don't know about them, are EXTREMELY liberal and devote more time to bashing conservatives than giving actual news (and even when they're making fun of social conservatives and religious people, I'm still disgusted by their hatred).

 

Anyway, whenever they talk about how people who are economically conservative have no empathy are don't care about others and are just selfish and greedy, and see people in the comments section doing the same thing, I always try making a comment poimting out how we're against being FORCED to support others, not against supporting others itself. This inevitably leads to others replying to me, making mostly emotion based arguments that have little to no thought put into them and are clearly just their biased opinions trying to seem like absolute morals. I reply back to them, not returning their attacks back on them, hoping I'll get through to them and change their mind, but they just heap more and more emotional attacks on me, but of course, I never succeed.

 

I recognize these attacks and consciously know that they're not true, but they still affect me on an emotional level. Being called selfish, unempathetic, immoral, irrational, etc. combined with the hopelessness that comes from not being able to change anyone's mind puts me in a really bad mood and ruins the rest of my day.

 

I'm aware that this occurs because of my childhood (the emotional attacks against me and others hurting me because of my older brother speaking in similar ways to me, my younger brother, and my parents to a lesser degree, and the hopelessness coming from never being able to logically convince my parents of their irrationality and hypocrisy), but I'm wondering, should I try to debate anyway?

 

If I shouldn't since it will just make me kinda depressed, then I'll have to just stop watching TYT, since I can't help but point out other people's irrationality and hypocrisy when I see it, but then I won't be able to get as much news (despite their annoying bias, they're a good news source).

[Mick Bynes]

I say debate 'em.  You should watch a lot of the Freedomain Radio videos to equip yourself with knowledge that statists do not have.  You should do quite well.

[Wesley]

Why do you need to get the news?

 

How do you usually feel during these debates?

 

Have you ever seen the Bomb in the Brain series?

 

Do you think that these people are able to be changed?

(If no, then what are you trying to achieve by debating them?)

[if yes, then what is your evidence for this?]

 

Why do you feel the need to argue these things?

 

What is your past experience with trying to change peoples minds?

(the earlier the better)

 

Why would not debating make you feel depressed?

[TheRobin]

in order for there to be a debate you need two people who are able to reason and put forward reasoned arguments. From what you tell me, the people you try to debate with don't do that (for whatever reason, imo doesn't really matter anyway). SO even if you'd WANT to, it seems an impossible thing to do.

 

and imo, it sounds like you're trying to disturb a KKK meeting with scientific evidence that blacks are not inferior. Everyoen who's at the KKK is almost by definition so biased that having an open talk or debate is impossible anyway.

 

Imo save your energy for people who actually CAN be debated and reasoned with and don't bother with people who clearly can't 

[Jay Paul]

I'd use the "against me" argument and be done with it. If they refuse to reform their conclusion after saying they don't support you being thrown in prison and raped or shot for disagreeing with them about whatever it may be that you're arguing with them about whatever the subject matter may be, than they're illogical and you should not stay in the debate, and in the case they do support the use of aggression against you you'd best get the hell away from those people.

[FireShield]

Yeah, I've decided to just stop watching TYT.  I'll get my news from other online sources (though they're not as entertaining and don't cover as wide of a variety of news).  I can't help but debate people when I notice a mistake in what they're saying, and so desperately want to convince them that I'm right or be convinced that they're right.  One guy asked me to debate him in private messages on YouTube, and I agreed to since I'd be able to argue my points more effectively, and he seems more rational than most people I debate online (he's not using emotional attacks).

 

And now it's time for a rant.  I'm at college, and every once in a while, these Christian fundamentalists come to the campus with signs like "evolution is a lie" and talk to the crowd about how we need to "repent or go to hell."  So today, I tried debating with some of the people who weren't talking to the crowd.  After a bit, I asked them if they were open to the possibility that they were wrong, and they said no... so I realized that it was pointless to continue debating with them, but I did it anyway.  I think this is because, as I said earlier, throughout my childhood I debated with my parents over the rules that they made, first asking them why they made those rules, then providing contradictions to their reasons if there were any (which, most of the time, there were), and asking them why they said so if their reason was "because I said so." Of course, it never ended with them saying "you know, you're right," and rarely ended with me saying "oh, okay, I understand now," but most of the time ended with them saying "we're not discussing this anymore."

 

Want to know what's funny (in a cruelly ironic kind of way)?  I never once broke my parents rules, yet I got punished more than my brothers did.  I got punished for questioning the rules they made, or pointing out their hypocrisies.  They would never punish me immediately, but usually the argument would escalate to yelling, and they would punish me for yelling at them (and then I point out that they're yelling at me and they say "we're your parents, we can talk to you in whatever way we want but you have to treat us with respect"; also it's funny: my dad claimed that I always raised my voice first, but in later arguments, I was able to control my emotions and remain calm the entire time, and my parents ended up yelling louder and getting even more enraged than usual, so it's evident that he was the one who escalated it), or they would say something like "this discussion is over" or "we don't owe you an explanation" (which they would ALWAYS do as soon as I said something that they didn't have an answer to), and, realizing how unfair this was, I would push the debate and would end up being punished for doing so (and then would continue trying to debate with them, and would end up just getting a more severe punishment, until I just ended up running to my room crying out of hopelessness).

 

Anyway, this explains why I feel the need to debate with people, even when they say that they aren't even open to the possibility that they're wrong - I think that subconsciously I feel like if I was just able to convince one irrational person that they're wrong, and get them to listen to reason, I would be able to do the same with my parents.  The feeling of "if I make this argument, then they'll understand" keeps me debating, even when it's hopeless.  I felt really sorry for these people - I could tell that they genuinely believed in what they were saying, and that's why I wanted to get them to understand that they're wrong (as opposed to someone who uses their religion as an excuse to keep their bigotry).

 

But here's one thing that enraged me: one student watching me debate one of the guys said something like, "if there's no god, then what's keeping him from punching you in the face, like I want to do from listening to you speak.  God's giving him the patience to not punch you in the face."  And then someone else watching the debate said to him something like "Why would you want to punch him?" and he said to me "You're telling this guy that there is no god, why not just let him believe what he believes," and I replied with, "I'm not the one standing out here in public yelling out to people that there is no god, I'm just responding to what he's saying."  And then the guy who I was debating gave a little card that he was handing out to people to that guy and that guy said thanks and left.  But what I felt like saying afterwards was "WHAT?!  You want to punch me in the face for simply asking this guy how he knows that god is real and refuting his arguments?  He's out here, telling people that they need to believe what he believes or else they'll be tortured for eternity after they die, and you say that I deserve to be punched in the face, just for asking him how he knows what he's saying is true and pointing out the flaws in what he's saying?!  What kind of sick, twisted, vile piece of filth are you to be able to think something as horrid as that?!"  And to make it worse, he had a pleasant, vaguely happy expression on his face.  Of course, I know why what I was saying made him want to punch me in the face, as do all of you I'm sure, but it still enrages me to think about what that scumbag said.  The person I was debating most of the time I was there was kinder than the others, which I why I chose to talk to him, since I'm extremely susceptible to emotional attacks - even though I'm aware of what they're doing, it invokes the memories of my older brother making fun of me when I was younger, and my parents cutting me off and talking over me Bill O'Reilly style (which is what the apparent "leader" of these people did when debating with others).

 

Debates with irrational people... if I don't debate, I feel like I'm letting them win, and get depressed; if I debate but give up out of hopelessness, I feel like I've lost, and get depressed; if I debate until the other person ends the debate because I've logically cornered them, I feel manipulated, and get depressed.  I guess the only solution is to avoid irrational people as a whole as much as possible, otherwise I'll end up feeling depressed.

[Gaurav251]

One thing I learned about irrational people is that their arguments dont follow a pattern at all, they can switch their 'moral compass' as fast as they can do a 180 degree body turn. My greatest example is my father who says that religion gives people peace because people are naturally violent and then when I bring up Islam (because he naturally hates sunni religion because hes a hinduist) he says "that makes people violent unless they follow *insert another religion*".

 

I think Stef said that these kinds of people are those that "even when they are check mated in a game they will not admit defeat and continue on as if the king can be lost and the game can continue with what ever pieces that person has left" in other words even if the argument is completely irrational or illogical to the point that were entering complete fantasy land stuff (dragons, mermaids, planet X that will destroy the earth one day, etc.) there is little you can do if that person is not willing to even say that he has a 1% chance of being wrong or maybe just misled. You are just going to be arguing pointlessly because you 'cant win' regardless of what you do because the game was 'rigged' from the start to make it so the only winning condition is that you lose.

[Guest - Josh -]

FireShield,

 

Whether or not you want to debate statists is up to you, but please bear in mind that if it weren’t for patient debaters over the course of many months, I would have never become an atheist, nor would I even be here. The ideas you are putting forward do have an effect on others -- if not your opponent than other forum goers, viewers, and bystanders. People are not a lost cause. Thanks to the tide of reason, I am where I am today.

 

I also watch TYT every now and again to refresh my understanding of the progressive perspective. Sometimes it's entertaining, and sometimes it's annoying (both because they're wrong), but if you don't know what's on your opponent's mind, you can't really debate effectively. And don't fall prey to confirmation bias; take the time to understand other worldviews if you're going to do this.

 

And don't think of it as winning. You're just presenting the facts because you enjoy it. If you manage to convince people, that's great; if you don't, you never know that it just might have an impact on them later. 

 

But don't take on this task as if it were a burden. If this causes you emotional distress, take care of yourself first. Your health is more important than someone's persistent ignorance.

 

Also consider debating in more healthy environments where ad hominems are against the rules. Yahoo Answers! and the comment section of YouTube vids are probably not ideal places. And don't continue to debate with people who consistently use fallacious arguments or show signs that they are incapable of reason. There are always people who hold unreasonable beliefs, but who are also more than capable of using logic and understanding new things. In any case, make sure you take time for yourself to do the things that make you happy and relaxed. Don't feel defeated or discouraged by the presence of ignorance in the world. You may be only one person, friend, but remember you aren't alone.

 

 

[tasmlab]

I found most online debates, esp. places like Facebook, alternet, huffpost, Reason, Daily Kos and hosts of other places, focused more on closing the conversation and being 'right'.  Everybody wants to be 'right' and nobody wants to be curious.

 

Which means they can't become any smarter, because one can not become smarter if they know all the answers and have no curiosity.

 

If I debate liberals these days I mostly try to insist that they be good liberals (be anti-war, be anti-corporatist).  Even that is challenging!