Are we still able to debate fairly?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Mrs.Anteater

Just keep going....
I just watched an interesting documentary with that title ( in German). They were looking at how people today seem to tend to have extreme positions and the tendency of families and friendships breaking up over issues like the vaccinations. They had a media specilist and a communications psychologist commenting. One interesting comment with regards to social media and internet in general, was:
Today, scrolling through the social media and the internet for half an hour, one sees a multitude of small and larger conflicts. The social media are living off polarizing to get reactions. They aim at existing archaic instincts in us.

And:
Todays world has never been like this before. We suffer of a constant overdose of world events which constantly confront us with large and small ideologies. Having just browsed through the internet with it’s ongoing aggressive discussions, one carries that constant irritation into one’s own daily life.

A democracy lives off conflicting opinions and debates and requires active tolerance of that tension between them. Only in a dictatorship there is no conflict, because one has to believe and take what is ordered.

There also was an interesting survey they did: they asked Germans : Can one today speak freely of one’s political opinion?
Interesting was the statistics. In the 1950 ties, about 58% said yes. The numbers rose to 78% between the 1960 ties and into the 80 ties, fell to 66% in 2011 and is now in 2021 at 45%. And that despite the fact that Germany is not a dictatorship and every citizen has still the right to free speech. The reason for that perception, so they suggested, was the high publicity through the internet. While in past years, anything said at the pub only stays within a small circle, today, everything is at risk of being put on the internet being scrutinized by others.
( interesting here, too, - my opinion- that the same one who fear that judgement are likely the ones doing it themselves to others)

Solutions to learn to actively learn better debate:
- Imagine there is a human being at the other end of sending the comment
-learn to hold your breath, hesitate and think first, then send your second thought and not your first

Any more suggestions?
 
Set a time limit for debates...when it becomes overheated....revisit it the next day.
(Good marital advice too, lol.)
Learn how to fact check and supply sources before speaking.
Learn how to admit when you're proven wrong.
 
Bring back actual organized debates using Oxford rules and have moderators who will actually enforce them. The spineless moderation we see in modern political debates has led me to stop watching them. A free for all will inevitably generate more heat than light.
 
I heard a brilliant quote after watching Seven Years In Tibet...might apply here:
"You admire the man who pushes his way to the top, in any walk of life. While we admire the man who abandons his ego.
The average Tibetan wouldnt thrust himself forward this way."

So basically "check your ego"
 
Bring back actual organized debates using Oxford rules and have moderators who will actually enforce them. The spineless moderation we see in modern political debates has led me to stop watching them. A free for all will inevitably generate more heat than light.
Do kids in Canada learn this in high school? We did quite extensively, ensuring that we learned to argue both sides of the same issue.
 
Do kids in Canada learn this in high school? We did quite extensively, ensuring that we learned to argue both sides of the same issue.
We did to some degree in my day. There was even university-style competitive debating. I knew a lot of my high school's team (one I knew well became a lawyer, another has been in politics on and off). But I don't recall Little M saying much about it when he was in high school. Would have to ask.
 
Do kids in Canada learn this in high school? We did quite extensively, ensuring that we learned to argue both sides of the same issue.
I had debate club in elementary school, don't recall it after although I assume it's likely University had it but I didn't seek it out. There were 100s of clubs at University. Jr. High and high school I doubt, as the number of clubs were small.
 
I think there was a debating club in my high school; my extracurriculars were almost always math competition clubs...
 
I just watched an interesting documentary with that title ( in German). They were looking at how people today seem to tend to have extreme positions and the tendency of families and friendships breaking up over issues like the vaccinations. They had a media specilist and a communications psychologist commenting. One interesting comment with regards to social media and internet in general, was:
Today, scrolling through the social media and the internet for half an hour, one sees a multitude of small and larger conflicts. The social media are living off polarizing to get reactions. They aim at existing archaic instincts in us.

And:
Todays world has never been like this before. We suffer of a constant overdose of world events which constantly confront us with large and small ideologies. Having just browsed through the internet with it’s ongoing aggressive discussions, one carries that constant irritation into one’s own daily life.

A democracy lives off conflicting opinions and debates and requires active tolerance of that tension between them. Only in a dictatorship there is no conflict, because one has to believe and take what is ordered.

There also was an interesting survey they did: they asked Germans : Can one today speak freely of one’s political opinion?
Interesting was the statistics. In the 1950 ties, about 58% said yes. The numbers rose to 78% between the 1960 ties and into the 80 ties, fell to 66% in 2011 and is now in 2021 at 45%. And that despite the fact that Germany is not a dictatorship and every citizen has still the right to free speech. The reason for that perception, so they suggested, was the high publicity through the internet. While in past years, anything said at the pub only stays within a small circle, today, everything is at risk of being put on the internet being scrutinized by others.
( interesting here, too, - my opinion- that the same one who fear that judgement are likely the ones doing it themselves to others)

Solutions to learn to actively learn better debate:
- Imagine there is a human being at the other end of sending the comment
-learn to hold your breath, hesitate and think first, then send your second thought and not your first

Any more suggestions?
It certainly is a conundrum

Our big sister is very loud and quite close to us in many ways


And she is going through insane levels of Polarization
So diagnosis is the first issue
Like these



Then the cure?

Id get rid of Social Media lol

Umm...encourage some form of Way of Liberation (like Magick, Yoga, Meditation)

Create a world where people in including developed countries aren't starving and involuntarily homeless

Care for the Inventing Class (and this includes scientists)-'you wouldnt want Einstein back then to be permanently cancelled due to a mistake

Umm. Teach critical thinking from an early age

Maybe statistics--Science is HARD! LOL
 
Last edited:
Thus 9 Muses as posted along the way to generate the ten's (IO's) ... and thus off to work we go sin the depths as Tennessee Ernie howled about 16 vessels ... them's Tuns M'N place to put data that will never surface again ... until the misses get hymn singing ... sometimes known a DNA ... or short for Nathan's place to put it without thought ... stunning application!

Can nothing be baked or found in the state of Bacon? What does it take ... for unraveling ... what was wrapped around the wholly? It was all fuzzy as none would recall the imp UL's ... that's ET! Over stood ... and the stuff was piled on ... as it burned to the core ...

Can traditions like sects be discussed? Thus sacred sects ... quis clubs that are stunning ... discrete or maybe di grassing ... to search the underlying reason ...

What's the chance of discovery when dealing with an idealism that knowledge is evil? Furthermore love of it was wasted as Sophia and the sophistic ... as counter to the conception ... Sophia filed off as not on the record ... defiled?

There someone lost it in the gross gathering ... with considerable contact ... Sagan ... or say again? Considerable repetition given how we learn ... by the process of gowest young man ... but have agreement over the object of dispersal ... could be a mulled bury ... muted an slick as silkae! Some times a critter of Eire ... mine due ... a bit Aries ...

Chaos is the essence of capture ... if you can grasp it ... we see little due conscience that is opposed to pro science ... due to the pain of seeing clearly! That's Ole or Oli ... as slick ... causing oli garcons ... the franc rush in the Cos sack? Initiated by Kat heir in ... really a Frau Line ... loop tossed? De NU' say ... OHM agad ... resistance diminished ... contact is complex!
 
Last edited:
Yes. Unfortunately fear and greed are the favourite tools of politicians and those rely on emotions.
 
Yes. Unfortunately fear and greed are the favourite tools of politicians and those rely on emotions.
And hope and vision are the favourite tools of social reformers and those also rely on emotions. Logic and reason are not what make us human. Emotion hand in hand with logic and reason is. Emotion is what makes us care. Emotion is what makes us hope. Emotion is what makes us happy. Take away emotion and Christianity, at least the liberal variety that focuses on God/Christ's love of the world, loses its raison d'etre because love is an emotion.

We need both reason and emotion to make decisions. Else we go the "cold logic" route that leads to decisions like "we must kill 1/10 of the population to save the rest." Yes, maybe that's the logical decision in some cases, but if we don't fight to the end to find another way and weep if it actually happens, we are not human. That's why we cannot rely on AI or algorithms. They lead to the cold logic, not reason tempered with emotion (and vice versa).

So, no, we don't have it backwards. The problem is that we have the balance wrong. Too much emotion is a bad thing. So is too much reason.
 
Back
Top