Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 127 posts

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#81

Post by Mithaldu »

_dps wrote: post #57
Mithaldu wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nationality I mention it specifically because, in all the nationalities i have talked to, i.e. in my personal experience, the USA is the only one to have a high school debate club culture that's widely spread.

At a minimum, I personally know of active school/university debate societies in the United Kingdom and Australia. And while it sounds like you've had some bad experiences, my personal sense is that the majority of people with formal debate experience are actually better, on average, at staying within the bounds of civil discourse. Having said that, there is indeed an overly aggressive subset of the population that is…

Notably both of these countries are english majority. I went looking for german debate clubs and found that we have some, but also that they're relatively young (the national debating org in germany was formed only in 2001), and were mainly formed based on inspiration by the english language sphere.

I'm also curious what exactly you mean with civil discourse? I don't know which style you're referring to, but i've seen people who cared primarily about discourse being "polite", even if the most horrible ideas were being presented as valid.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#82

Post by DoreenMichele »

andromeduck wrote: post #79
fallous wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that being comfortable with differing opinions and being comfortable with certain forms of creative debate are two different things. A debate should be a voluntary contest between parties and is only possible if they both share and agree upon a base set of principles as the foundation for the debate. If an atheist and a theist "debate" the existence of God(s) it isn't a resolvable argument since their divergence…

Debate isn't always about changing the opinion of the person you're debating with. You can debate to win the audience.

The best debates aren't about winning at all. They are about getting at the truth and broadening your understanding of a topic by exposing yourself to different points of view which can cast light on personal blind spots or holes in your knowledge.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#83

Post by joaomacp »

The media always focuses on the negative: if kids were really fighting more and being more aggressive, the titles wouldn't be "Kids are more corageous than their parents were". They would be more like "Did we create a violent world for our kids?"

It's been proven that humans focus more on the negatives than the positives, so the media takes advantage of that with these type of headlines.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#84

Post by _dps »

Mithaldu wrote: post #81
_dps wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At a minimum, I personally know of active school/university debate societies in the United Kingdom and Australia. And while it sounds like you've had some bad experiences, my personal sense is that the majority of people with formal debate experience are actually better, on average, at staying within the bounds of civil discourse. Having said that, there is indeed an overly aggressive subset of the population that is…

Notably both of these countries are english majority. I went looking for german debate clubs and found that we have some, but also that they're relatively young (the national debating org in germany was formed only in 2001), and were mainly formed based on inspiration by the english language sphere. I'm also curious what exactly you mean with civil discourse? I don't know which style you're referring to, but i've see…

There are many norms of civil discourse represented in debating traditions, but there is substantial variation. Still, two that are enforced in all formal debate I know are:

1) all participants have equal access to present their views, usually uninterrupted for at least some portion of time

2) all participants have equal access to rebut their opponent's views, so neither side has an opportunity to present an uncontested idea

These are important norms to keep more powerful, obnoxious, or charismatic people from having (as much) undue advantage in the contest of ideas.

I see these formal characteristics as orthogonal to whether someone has horrible views. Without guarantees of this kind you may find yourself on the wrong side of a power imbalance, and then you have no right to challenge said ideas in a fair contest.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#85

Post by stretchwithme »

I wonder how technology could be used to enhance debate. What if each side of an argument had a fixed percentage of talk time, enforced by software? Would people ratchet down their arguments and stop interrupting each other? Would they conserve their time so they can get a lengthy last word? What if you actually LOST time when you interrupted the other side?

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#86

Post by _dps »

Mithaldu wrote: post #78
_dps wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Debate" has a long tradition of meaning a formalized presentation of opposing views, each represented by a person or team, for the purpose of evaluating relative merits. "Discourse" is a much broader term and does not imply formal structure, opposition, merit evaluation, or that advocacy of particular ideas is associated with particular speakers. IMO "Debate" is absolutely the right term for what the advice suggests…

You're right that historically debate was more noble. But meanings of words change. The problem with debate as it exists today in the english sphere is that it refers to a sport where teams try to argue for views they don't even hold regardless of what they themselves even think about it. Due to the idea that regardless of the actual merits of an idea debated, either team needs to have an equal chance to "win", the w…

Could you elaborate on why you think the meaning of the word has changed?

If I'm understanding you correctly, it sounds to me like you think the current use of the word in the USA is restricted to one narrow activity of debating societies (formal tournaments where neither side is, a priori, invested in a particular idea and in fact doesn't even know which side of the debate they'll have to represent). This is just one of many things debating societies do, and yes it does have a sport element as you and others suggest.

But, based on my experience (and I have quite a lot with debating societies in both the USA and the UK) I don't think this one activity has come to dominate what "debate" means in the USA. I would be surprised if the average citizen thought in this way.

So I wonder what makes you think this activity has come to be the meaning of debate in the USA, as opposed to just one thing debating societies do?

P.S. purely as an aside I think there may be misunderstanding about the value of people advocating "views they may not even hold". This is only characteristic of tournaments, and is a feature not a bug. Since you don't know until quite late which side you will represent, it forces you to be prepared to do an equally good job representing either side. This is, in my opinion, an excellent mental exercise. At the moment the debate happens, you are arguing something one-sided you may not believe — but in the preparation for the debate you are carefully evaluating the best arguments for both sides.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#87

Post by BrandoElFollito »

Mithaldu wrote: post #81
_dps wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At a minimum, I personally know of active school/university debate societies in the United Kingdom and Australia. And while it sounds like you've had some bad experiences, my personal sense is that the majority of people with formal debate experience are actually better, on average, at staying within the bounds of civil discourse. Having said that, there is indeed an overly aggressive subset of the population that is…

Notably both of these countries are english majority. I went looking for german debate clubs and found that we have some, but also that they're relatively young (the national debating org in germany was formed only in 2001), and were mainly formed based on inspiration by the english language sphere. I'm also curious what exactly you mean with civil discourse? I don't know which style you're referring to, but i've see…

I checked the same for France and they are a few but this is not something common.

There are debates at law schools (horrible exercise of corporatism favoritism, having attended to a few of them) though.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#88

Post by mistermann »

iovrthoughtthis wrote: post #15
_dps wrote: post #2

The article quotes studies claiming that people who grow up with conflict in their personal lives are more likely to be comfortable with differing opinions and certain forms of creative debate. Since there's seemingly some benefit of exposure to these kinds of negative experiences, they mention advice on how to mitigate the negative aspect of conflict. But I think it's actually great advice to teach children/students…

This is fantastic advise for effective debate. I would add: * agree on the meaning of the words you use. * be upfront about how willing you are to be wrong / change your mind (I phrase this as "what would have to be true for you to accept I am right" and vice versa for my beliefs).

> be upfront about how willing you are to be wrong / change your mind (I phrase this as "what would have to be true for you to accept I am right" and vice versa for my beliefs).

This would often be a highly productive way to start the discussion, because very often the situation is that one side or the other is vehemently not willing to have their mind changed, which I'd argue is the case with most arguments you'll see on Facebook or Reddit.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#89

Post by pjkundert »

Or, perhaps restore training in the Scientific Method.

A root of the growing divide between Left and Right is that neither party realizes how easily falsified their claims are.

Scientists realize that they are wrong almost always, and that when they are right, their hypothesis is usually very narrowly defined.

If people were trained to realize that they were almost always wrong by the time they reached 6th grade, you’d see a lot more openness to debate, and far fewer entrenched positions - and much more liberty allowed by/to everyone, I think.

Presently, kids exit grade school pretty much believing that they are pretty much “right” in everything they believe. This is tragically false, and a foundation for a lifetime of deep disappointment.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#90

Post by fallous »

andromeduck wrote: post #79
fallous wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that being comfortable with differing opinions and being comfortable with certain forms of creative debate are two different things. A debate should be a voluntary contest between parties and is only possible if they both share and agree upon a base set of principles as the foundation for the debate. If an atheist and a theist "debate" the existence of God(s) it isn't a resolvable argument since their divergence…

Debate isn't always about changing the opinion of the person you're debating with. You can debate to win the audience.

Indeed, but unless you're all operating from a common shared set of principles and a goal there is no argument about means and you're not actually debating but instead just having a pep rally reinforcing tastes.

I believe green is the best color, the opposing side believes red is the best color. There is no argument to be had here since we don't agree on a definition of "best" other than "my color."

Post reply on HN