To think we need to learn how to debate again

[MyHeartyCoralSnail]

There is ever decreasing tolerance for people with different views, People think they have the moral high ground and that their views are the only ones which matter.

This view is endorsed in schools, the work place, the Media (even the BBC has stopped any effort to be unbiased). The more intolerant we are the wider the divide is becoming.

Schools need to be teaching kids to debate, it needs to be part of the national curriculum, schools need to welcome all views equally and discuss them.

Universities and work places need to stop censorship of views.

It is largely the far Left who seem to dislike reasoned debate.

If we taught people how to explain, how to listen to alternative perspectives the world would be much better

I think that the far left are those who seek to show every person as being the same rather than just equal. So for example the position that men and women are so much the same one can literally become the other (yes, I know that thought is self cancelling but we didn’t claim that far left politics made sense). That everyone should have the right to move anywhere (I see people edging towards this with comments about Brexit, refugees welcome etc with no caveats). People who look to attack the existing power structure. So those supporting action for Palestine an organisation who attacked military assets as far left.
Those who do not see an issue with a country’s existing culture and would happily see it as fundamentally changed through high immigration and lack of intergration I would see as far left as they are seeking through action or inaction to alter one of the fundamental basis of an existing society

Also no we don't need to fuel this "debate me bro" culture any further.

It's toxic and only about owning the libs or making maga grandad's world come crashing down with one simple question.

It's not in good faith, it's not being done to change minds or inform, is being done to win and it's fucking stupid.

How much good do the likes of Nick Fuentes, Charlie Kirk or Stephen chowder actually bring to the discourse?

Fuck all

How much good did klepper, Adam mockler or the good liars do by making maga folk look stupid and attacked rather than trying to bring them in to the fold.
Yeah we all felt great laughing and Trump strolled to the Whitehouse.

The obsession with debating is basically trying to turn discussion in to competitive sports and clippable content.

It's cheap tricks, bad faith actors and selective editing and it is absolutely fucking over America and any attempt at discourse between the parties.

You need to teach discussion and research not debate

When do you think the BBC became far left?

Are they speaking for the government or for someone else?

And don’t you think debate is a formalised discussion. Do you not this it needs research?

Surely debate is about changing minds through informing

I certainly don't think that universities and schools need to teach debating skills if what you mean is the behaviour you're modelling on this thread. Dictating to people what they are supposed to be commenting on, claiming to have deliberately used devices to lead them in a certain direction. I think there's quite enough of this done already to manipulate the thinking of others. What should be taught is the ability to research facts and apply them to contexts yourself, to think critically, so when you form an opinion it is informed and your own, rather than the result of persuasion by those who have learned the skill of misinforming with conviction. Once you have learned this, debating is no longer an 'art' is just an honest exchange of learning.

Classic debate yes.

Debate that the likes of Kirk, the good liars, moxler, Shapiro do is not.

They're not finding people with an agreed agenda and preparing a position. They're going after low hanging fruit and then throwing a barrage of prepared statistics and talking points at unprepared people in front of a camera to score political points.

Also while debate is formalized discussion it is inorganic. It is a useful tool but it doesn't allow for nuance or freedom of thought. If my assigned position is X is good, then acknowledging bad things X did hurts my position.
It's still extremely useful as it forces you to learn how to consider the opposition view and structure arguments it is given far too high a place on social media as a gauge of intelligence when really it's a learned skill.

I think it contributes to our desire for charismatic leaders and an insane amount of stock being put in debate between politicians when really we should be looking for people who are good at sitting down and drafting a long document about an issue rather than who's quick on their feet and speaks well.

Interesting but I am not sure this is far left . My understanding of far left is people who advocate extreme and radical changes to society and the economy. Possibly Jeremy Corbyn may fit this. But really these are very small groups of people with little influence. The groups that you speak of are more like extreme liberal views surely? Far left is more authoritarian. maybe like China used to be?

You are wrong to say it's mostly 'the far left', whoever they are, who are unable to tolerate dissent and debate, many people with entrenched political identities and partisan views of all flavours can't tolerate debate.

Having taught in universities all my career, I have noticed academics becoming less and less open to debate of ideas concerning people and society, which is worrying. They are then unable to teach students to debate except within the very narrow perameters they themselves approve.

It's been acceptable for many decades for arts and humanities, although I'd include any subject areas with a social 'practice' side, to have a specifically political philosophy. This, in my experience, conforms to the broadly liberal-left set of attitudes you might read in The Guardian, with an intense focus not on Marxist economic analysis but on the 'isms' of 'social justice' and more lately the 'phobias' of identity politics.

It seems this is the general world-view shared by what used to be referred to as The Establishment. Which is why the institutions of the state reflect these views in their policies, why parliamentarians and the BBC reflect them and corporate businesses too. Or at least they pay lip service to the notion they are horrified by isms and phobias.

The Establisment world-view of yesteryear was more conservative, nominally Christian, supportive of traditional class structure etc. It has changed.

But now - thanks in part to the internet fragmentation of media channels and sources of information, establishment views are no longer a background of general attitudes but angrily fought wars of culture and identity.

Universities at the very least should drag themselves back to neutral ground and begin to re-address scholarly debate, leaving political activism to the students' union. But whether they'll do this given the expectations of consumer-students and a politicised culture, especially in some subjects, and in the awarding of research money, I don't know.

Its not my understanding of far left either. For me it's about a core value that people should be equal, in terms of life chances and advantage, whilst recognising that we start from different positions that effect our ability to be treated as such. It's about addressing the structures that create and perpetuate inequality, capitalism, class and wealth, and keeping that value at the heart of every policy. Its about accepting that the wishes of the individual may need to come secondary to the greater good. With the last in mind, I think the teaming of certain groups with the tradional hard left has caused confusion and a dilution of what left wing politics once were.

Debate only serves a purpose if you a prepared to acknowledge that there are two sides to the argument or, in other words, see nuance.

Social media algos have evolved far faster than the human brain ever did or ever could and what they serve up is crack cocaine for the brain, intelligent-sounding people agreeing with whatever your view is in a short sound bite.

So no one wants to be partially right or to appreciate a political policy has costs as well as benefits or trade offs, benefiting one slice of the population whilst hurting another.

It is not really debating that has collapsed but concentration span and analytical thinking.

Schools do their best, to be fair. It is parenting that needs to improve, if anything. And SM algorithms should be regulated.

Until Brexit, people didn't reveal how they voted. It was a private matter and you never asked.
Far better that way, now the left chooses friends on how they voted, being the bigots most are. Of course their strong ethics fail them when it suits. Their boss being a Conservative or their electrician with an English flag on his white van.

The problem is that most people do not have a shared view of the objective facts when going to a debate. Some people believe that 90% of immigrants entering from France illegally are genuine asylum seekers who have fled terrible persecution. Some believe 90% of them are (at best) economic migrants or spongers.

Those people are never going to manage to have a useful debate about immigration policy, no matter how well they have been trained to debate. It just can't get off the ground when each side believes that the other side is wrong about objective facts.

The only debates worth having are when both sides agree on the facts but have differing opinions or interpretations. There is implicit recognition that there is room for nuance.

If they don't agree on the facts, debate will go nowhere. There is, by definition, the belief that the other side is flat-out wrong and there is no nuance.

What nonsense. It's always been pretty obvious which way people one knows well vote by their expressed opinions on current affairs. So unless you and your friends discussed only the weather or Marjories geraniums, you'd not have ask to know whether they leaned left or right.
I don't follow your thinking with regards to the politics of one's employer or electrician either. Left wing people are not responsible for the right wing views of their boss or the person who rewires their kitchen.

Exactly

There's can be no debate had between the vocal maga right and the vocal liberal left in respect of something like January 6th because they fundamentally disagree on the terms.
One side believes it was a false flag by antifa and the other believes it was insurrection.

There's no discussion to be had in that space.

Yes, and there is no point in a climate change denier having any kind of "debate" with a climate scientist. It will quickly get farcical.

But two people who share the same understanding of the science behind climate change can have a good debate about whether the UK's net-zero policy is a good policy or not.

Wow, this thread is going to generate some good-faith discussion, I'm sure.

Totally agree with you.

My DD has just returned from sixth form. Today they were TOLD in assembly that all the flags were purely a declaration of racism from the extreme far right activists. It wasn't an opening to a discussion, it was statement.

It is this sort of rhetoric with the shut down of debate that angers people and causes division. Debate and free speech is basic in a civilised society

Also, I agree that in pop culture, debate has become toxic. Debates published on YouTube are far more often "watch xxx TOTALLY DESTROY stupid lefty/MAGA/Antifa/gammon idiot".

I'd like more "X and Y have a calm discussion about their differing opinions on topic x"

I agree we need to teach better debate skills.

I don’t agree it’s the far left (alone) that are terrible at it. And I’m not far left myself.

They aren’t the ones currently protesting outside hotels and threatening lives and inciting violence.

Politics has become hateful. Of both sides listened we could move towards middle ground and back to the more centrist politics that always worked well previously in the UK and was where the Tory’s once sat and probably why they been the party mostly in power.

Point is, it never mattered. A group of friends could be from any political persuasion. Good or bad people aren't who they vote for. How easy a police officer's job would be if that were the case.
We certainly never heard such ignorant remarks such as "I could never kiss a Tory."

It’s hardly a great advert for “reasoned debate “ if you begin with insulting people - everyone but the far left is capable of reasonable debate ? Really? Given how small the far left is that shouldn’t mean we have a problem ? Why would the far left want to talk you you if you have already assumed they won’t ?

It might be helpful to read the first few posts.

this is absolutely not true. I don’t recognise any of what you are saying. People have always disagreed. But as a PP said, today there are lots of people forming opinions on misguided and manipulated information.

Naw - I don’t bother with people who have closed minds