5 ms·

Why is a debate worse than a discussion? We strive for debate on all other topics? If you actually want to challenge assumptions you must debate and evaluate

by nsnick 9y ago

Why is a debate worse than a discussion? We strive for debate on all other topics? If you actually want to challenge assumptions you must debate and evaluate the merits of someone else's argument. A discussion would just be you think x and I think y. A debate puts warrants behind the claims in those beliefs.

bduerst 9y ago
Adversarial debate is worse than discussion for reasons that these interviewees said: >The discussion around this has followed the trajectory of most of the polarizing mass discussion in the last few years; everyone comes out the other side with their opinions more calcified than ever, and more convinced than before of the intractability of the other side. Damore wasn't walking into this ready to discuss and/or learn, he wanted to blast his opinion internally with no intention of attempting to change it.
- nsnick 9y ago
  What you have posted is a claim. It needs a warrant.
  - bduerst 9y ago
    I've reiterated what the person said in the article. If your burden of proof is word semantics, then do I really need to elaborate to you more on the definitions of debate vs discussion?
    - nsnick 9y ago
      You are justifying your claim with a quote that is devoid of warrants.
      - bduerst 9y ago
        What disqualifies it as being warranted? It's from the article for this thread.
throwawayjava 9y ago
> Why is a debate worse than a discussion? Debate works really well in two situations: 1. All parties are experienced with debates and enjoy debates. In particular, they can partake in a debate and then, afterward, dispassionately evaluate the arc of the debate; OR 2. The setting is inherently adversarial and there is a third party who will ultimately decide the outcome. Almost all workplace conversations -- and indeed almost all life conversations -- do not fall into one of these two buckets. In particular: 1. Making use of debate in a search for truth is a difficult and non-universal skill. For individual debaters to get something out of a debate, they need to know how to disengage from their advocacy and evaluate the arc of the debate from an objective vantage point. This is a skill that requires training. Discussions, on the other hand, allow people to perform this switching between viewpoints as the discussion unfolds. This is much more natural. 2. Adversarial settings create emotional attachment. In debates, people very often become emotionally attached to their arguments and advocacy, causing ego to get in the way of a search for truth. In contrast, discussions do not require a stable advocacy, they are non-adversarial, and no one "wins". These characteristics de-emphasize ego and place the emphasis on whatever actually important issue is at hand. 3. Debates often end up confusing quality of argument with ground truth. It's always important to remember that constructing arguments is a skill and is time-consuming. It's certainly possible to "win" a debate and still be dead wrong about ground truths -- either by refining debating skill or by throwing more resources into argument construction. 4. Most people don't enjoy debates. I don't have any evidence here, but I think it's probably true. And in a work place, keeping your co-workers happy is probably a lot more important to achieving the company's goals than whatever epsilon benefit debate has over discussion. Maybe if universities looked more like The Academy everyone would be competent and comfortable in debates, and also understand their inherent limitations as a mechanism in the search for truth. But that's not the world we live in. So, although I enjoy a good debate as much as the next person, I've found that debates are a truly terrible method for making decisions in most professional settings.
- nsnick 9y ago
  You are actually trying to stifle debate on a topic you think is so self evident that it does not need any... and you are doing it by debating.

by nsnick 9y ago

bduerst 9y ago

Adversarial debate is worse than discussion for reasons that these interviewees said: >The discussion around this has followed the trajectory of most of the polarizing mass discussion in the last few years; everyone comes out the other side with their opinions more calcified than ever, and more convinced than before of the intractability of the other side. Damore wasn't walking into this ready to discuss and/or learn, he wanted to blast his opinion internally with no intention of attempting to change it.

nsnick 9y ago
What you have posted is a claim. It needs a warrant.
- bduerst 9y ago
  I've reiterated what the person said in the article. If your burden of proof is word semantics, then do I really need to elaborate to you more on the definitions of debate vs discussion?
  - nsnick 9y ago
    You are justifying your claim with a quote that is devoid of warrants.
    - bduerst 9y ago
      What disqualifies it as being warranted? It's from the article for this thread.

throwawayjava 9y ago

> Why is a debate worse than a discussion? Debate works really well in two situations: 1. All parties are experienced with debates and enjoy debates. In particular, they can partake in a debate and then, afterward, dispassionately evaluate the arc of the debate; OR 2. The setting is inherently adversarial and there is a third party who will ultimately decide the outcome. Almost all workplace conversations -- and indeed almost all life conversations -- do not fall into one of these two buckets. In particular: 1. Making use of debate in a search for truth is a difficult and non-universal skill. For individual debaters to get something out of a debate, they need to know how to disengage from their advocacy and evaluate the arc of the debate from an objective vantage point. This is a skill that requires training. Discussions, on the other hand, allow people to perform this switching between viewpoints as the discussion unfolds. This is much more natural. 2. Adversarial settings create emotional attachment. In debates, people very often become emotionally attached to their arguments and advocacy, causing ego to get in the way of a search for truth. In contrast, discussions do not require a stable advocacy, they are non-adversarial, and no one "wins". These characteristics de-emphasize ego and place the emphasis on whatever actually important issue is at hand. 3. Debates often end up confusing quality of argument with ground truth. It's always important to remember that constructing arguments is a skill and is time-consuming. It's certainly possible to "win" a debate and still be dead wrong about ground truths -- either by refining debating skill or by throwing more resources into argument construction. 4. Most people don't enjoy debates. I don't have any evidence here, but I think it's probably true. And in a work place, keeping your co-workers happy is probably a lot more important to achieving the company's goals than whatever epsilon benefit debate has over discussion. Maybe if universities looked more like The Academy everyone would be competent and comfortable in debates, and also understand their inherent limitations as a mechanism in the search for truth. But that's not the world we live in. So, although I enjoy a good debate as much as the next person, I've found that debates are a truly terrible method for making decisions in most professional settings.

nsnick 9y ago
You are actually trying to stifle debate on a topic you think is so self evident that it does not need any... and you are doing it by debating.