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

91–100 of 127 posts

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#91

Post by mistermann »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #68
arglebarnacle wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's certainly true about total war where the nation's survival is threatened by defeat, but it's not true about the kind of limited wars was have seen since world war 2. In fact, because these wars are limited wars for the world powers that start them, but total wars for the postcolonial states in the receiving end, I think it's very correct that the public e.g. in the US continue to aggressively question the rati…

On that note, the US spends almost as much in defense as the entire rest of the world . Losing a "war" in the middle East would not affect the US very much outside reputation.

This is true with the current realities of oil supply, maybe not so much 10 or 20 years ago. With indefinite domestic/local supplies now established, I really wish we could let them live their lives without our interference.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#92

Post by walshemj »

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.

Very raely is it about convicing the other debater its about convincing your audience that you are corect.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#93

Post by bayonetz »

_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…

Good points though the term debate has become a dirty word to me. I frame it as preferring "dialogue" over "debate" where dialogue refers the kind of exchange you laid out and debate is more of a conflict or competition where the aim is to win rather than advance truth. That's why it's so important to be transparent about your goals and values in an exchange. It's frustrating to let your guard down for a dialogue and find out via blindside that the asshole on the other side of the table only knows how to debate.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#94

Post by walshemj »

dhimes wrote: post #65
Mithaldu wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> debate The last time i had a conversation with an american trained in "debate", it was quickly obvious that reality and truth were the last thing on his mind, but scoring rethoric points was the first. The rest of your points are good, but i think if you start it out with the word debate, many americans are going to mentally short-circuit to that style of conflict, instead of "respectful conversation".

Debate is a sport over here in America, where high school teams compete. It's just as you say: they are not seeking truth, they are trying to win. It's reflected in our adversarial legal system as well. I personally don't like it that way, but there are people who think it's the best way.

From a discusion on here a while back hs and uni debation seems to have not much conection to real world parlimentray debates and would fail outside its own artificial world.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#95

Post by _dps »

bayonetz wrote: post #93
_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…

Good points though the term debate has become a dirty word to me. I frame it as preferring "dialogue" over "debate" where dialogue refers the kind of exchange you laid out and debate is more of a conflict or competition where the aim is to win rather than advance truth. That's why it's so important to be transparent about your goals and values in an exchange. It's frustrating to let your guard down for a dialogue and…

If you're just talking about how one word or another primes people's behavior I have no quibble; in fact I may even support such a substitution in some cases.

But I think you are too harsh on the idea of winning as inherently bad. If you are a saint and your opponent is a nazi, you fundamentally disagree on what the truth is. The way you advance truth is by winning (i.e. persuading an audience, or perhaps even your opponent, that your views are correct).

I agree that in general it's best to avoid zero-sum framing. But some ideas are simply incompatible with other ideas, and in those cases the pursuit of truth is inextricably tied to winning a contest.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#96

Post by walshemj »

_dps wrote: post #84
Mithaldu wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 uncontes…

Normaly there are rules of debate the main ones are

All debates are to a propesed motion.

Motion must make sense.

Time limits on speach for all participants.

Debaters must speak to the motion.

Pious motions normaly ruled out of order

No wreaking amendmenst are acepted.

No non relevent amendments.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#97

Post by nine_k »

bayonetz wrote: post #93
_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…

Good points though the term debate has become a dirty word to me. I frame it as preferring "dialogue" over "debate" where dialogue refers the kind of exchange you laid out and debate is more of a conflict or competition where the aim is to win rather than advance truth. That's why it's so important to be transparent about your goals and values in an exchange. It's frustrating to let your guard down for a dialogue and…

The problem is that a "debate" where winning is the aim and truth is not are pretty common.

Certain exposure to them, understanding their basic mechanics, and the skill of telling them from a truth-seeking "dialog", would be valuable for kids.

It's important for the same reason why understanding cognitive biases is important.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#98

Post by yesenadam »

pasquinelli wrote: post #69
dieterrams wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

‘Debate’ does seem to have strong connotations of a rhetorical fight. ‘Discourse’ has been the preferred word among philosphers and other circles that discuss this sort of thing.

dialectic is a more precise word.

for discussion/debate? Unfortunately the word has largely Hegelian and/or Marxist connotations nowadays doesn't it?

Anyway, with (Plato's) Socrates, dialectic doesn't seem to have been two people candidly searching for the truth either - usually it was Socrates expertly pretending to do that, while actually showing some expert just how much he didn't know about his chosen subject.

For me, dialectic and derived words mean Hegelian dialectic. That's 99.99% where I've heard the words used.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#99

Post by cornyNetHandle »

kbutler wrote: post #58
cornyNetHandle wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't about calling someone a moron, it is about being able to respond, "Thanks, I can be fucking stupid at times, can you show me where I am being moronic here?". It is also about being able top unguard your own language should you know that the other person is operating by the rules, not to be insulting, but so to not worry about it for that conversation and so not having to run that whole level of extra process…

But you could further optimize your communication by dropping the profanity. A listener declaring Crocker's rules says they will not be offended, but at best, profanity communicates your emotional reaction to a situation. In seeking optimal communication of information, profanity is largely wasted bandwidth.

The emotional reaction isn't wasted bandwidth.

Consider; "Get some water now, please.", when compared to; "Get some fucking water now!". One of these will usually elicit a much quicker reaction.

Re: Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting

#100

Post by yesenadam »

quadcore wrote: post #25
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>if someone wants to read nytimes, he knows where to find it If someone wants to discuss the merits of a particular NYT article they think may be of interest to this community with this community then this is the place to do it.

Sure but lately "of a particular NYT article" has become a lot of articles. Imagine the front page of HN is filled with articles like that, would you still read HN? I dont think so. Therefore, those articles are at the bottom of the standard and instead of more of them, we want less.

Well, if the front page was filled with articles of any one particular type/subject, I wouldn't still read HN. The diversity, such as it is, is part of the attraction. (Anyway, I'd way rather not have endless BTC articles than NYT articles.)

Although [disclosure] I didn't actually read the article. How many people do that regularly on here? Often I figure the discussion here is more interesting, more worth my time, more intellectual-curiosity-gratifying, ranging over more associated topics and questions, than the original article. Plus the top-voted comment, as here, often offers a TL;DR.

Post reply on HN