Debate can come in different guises. For the lawyer it can be a way of polishing up the tools of their trade, practice in twisting the truth to the shape required by the client. Debating where which side you are on is determined by drawing lots beforehand is as disreputable as deciding truth by a trial by combat between mercenaries.

The kind of debate I enjoy is not between teams who measure their success by how many minds they change but the kind of debate that helps me find out what the truth is. Winning a debate is a silly notion, especially when you set out to confront people who strongly hold opposing views. Few people change their minds as a result of newsgroup debates. For many people the explanation for that is simple, they believe that holding the views they hold makes them good people and so to change those views would be a sin, a personal failing, betraying the trust of their brethren and a social badge of shame.

Confronting a bunch of faith-heads is never likely to result in anything which would be fairly described as a victory. It does not matter whether the article of faith is a conventional religious opinion, a semi-religious stance such as Veganism or even the idea that Michael Jackson is a misunderstood genius. Any group formed around a shared article of faith is unlikely to ever admit defeat in debate with an infidel no matter how well the infidel argues or how conclusive the logical demolition of the faith is. That isn't how people work. Wrong-headed ideas don't go away because people who espouse them change their mind, they lose out because new people stop taking them up and they die out when the diehards finally die.

It is vitally important for the health of the human condition that we remain a mortal species. Virtual immortality would be a terrible curse on our civilization. Imagine if people in their fifties and sixties now never died, the future would be cursed forever with believing that Jimi Hendrix was the greatest guitarist who ever lived and could ever live, that the Rumble in The Jungle is as good as sport will ever get, Jesus Christ is Lord and gave the planet to man to use up and wear out before he will return again in glory. The only way any idea can truly be judged is by seeing if it survives wave after wave of new people coming of age and briefly thinking for themselves. Of course that is the last thing that faith-heads want to see happen so they try to get their indoctrination in early before critical faculties develop or to replace critical faculties in their entirety with faith. For those who value truth the best ammunition is to encourage children to think. Teach your children to swim and teach them to think before they go to school, and the schools should ensure that swimming and thinking are both taught to all children, including those whose parents think they should be or are Muslims. There is no right to decide what your children think and believe. Religious indoctrination is child abuse.

Good debate involves bouncing ideas off other people. Sometimes they bounce with a very dull sound, reminiscent of a large empty vessel. At other times they bounce back with the twang of a taut racquet and the ideas come back fast and with added spin. Great. Who wants to win by an ace? No matter where the ball is hit your opponent will claim your shot out and his in so don't expect to be congratulated on a win. Only you can tell if you have had a good game. In a newsgroup there are no neutrals, unless they're lost. Everybody there, playing or sat on a chair, is there to see you lose, or perhaps to see you pull one over on the hated enemy. Nobody is sat up high feeling even-handed and neutral. If they were disinterested they wouldn't be interested, would they? That's logic that is.

Atheism

Politics

Life

Feedback

Forum

Blog

Home

Tweet

© 1999 - 2011 by Martin Willett.

mwillett.org: Debate Unlimited