I have always disliked debates, not because I lose but because I can win if I want to. Or, more precisely, because of what it takes to win. As a natural debater I grew up taking on every challenge that came my way, despite my mothers wise council to choose my battles carefully. I quickly realized that there was a big difference between "winning" a debate, and being "right", and the winner rarely determined the more accurate view point. A debate, is really a fight by other means and by another name, and though we are more civilized for fighting in this way, it's still essentially a metaphoric battle to the death not unlike the games of ancient Rome. But instead of mortally wounding our bodies, we fight with our minds, or maybe ego is more to the point.
And it's all about points, the sharper the better. When one engages in a debate, they tend to see their opponent as living in a "bubble" of delusion, and it is up to us, for their own sake, to burst their bubble. In this bubble world there are some base assumptions, almost like a world view or creation myth, there is one great bubble called reality. When we see others forming a bubble around themselves that allows them to believe an unauthorized belief, idea, or theory, it is our duty to the great bubble called reality, that we sharpen our swords, words, minds, and get ready to burst some bubbles. We can even tell ourselves that anyone who disagrees with us and whatever authority we identify with, is a threat to us and maybe the world at large. This is sometimes the case when people and groups have counter agendas, and they may find themselves constantly blocked by one another seeking only to free the obstacles in their own path.
Open debates in the general public, rather than between two individuals, are more democratic and lateral, and less bent on winning or losing but instead on informing both sides. It's when we pit ego against ego that we bring out the worst in people, and in ourselves if we are the ones in the arena. You may not be the aggressor, you may not be a mud slinger, but you will be dragged down into the mud and may find yourself justifying some mud slinging as retaliatory. Great, except most people were turning away in disgust and lost track of who started hitting below the belt, and does it really matter? Listen to any two respected figures in any field engage in a highly informed debate, and count the seconds before one of them says "Excuse me, can I finish?" It never ceases to amaze me how childish men and women in their later years can become when they are engaged in a heated debate.
In the mechanics of debate the sword fight analogy is uncanny in it's accuracy. The mind is often represented in metaphor as the sword of the intellect, slicing the world into its' component parts: higher/lower, left/right, inner/outer. Ideally one has the sharper sword, the sharper point, and when a point is sharp it makes clean cuts. But sometimes we know that our point is not sharp, but we are invested in the outcome of the debate and we feel we must win. And what does it take to win a sword fight with a dull point? One must use great force if they wish to pierce the armor, flesh, and bone of their opponent, and when this occurs the cut is not clean. Unlike when a sharp sword pierces flesh and bone, the dull point breaks and tears the flesh and brutally crushes and chips the bone creating more of a hole than a cut. A person is less likely to recover from such a wound and the pain is tenfold that of the sharper, cleaner cut.
Another great metaphor is the landscape analogy: the field of ideas, facts, theories, beliefs, etc. is like a giant landscape stretching as far as the eye can see in every direction. In this mental landscape it becomes necessary to distinguish between a "point" and a "claim." When one makes a point they are metaphorically pointing at some other place however near or far from where they stand. They are in no way invested in this idea they refer to, but merely pose the question "But what of this?" When one makes a "claim" it is not unlike the minors of the California gold rush, staking their claims on a position they are willing to fight and die for. And perhaps when we seek to simply be "understood" we are asking one to simply stand where we stand and see the view from here. When one can simply see the others point, or see the world from their unique position, there is potential for understanding and tolerance, even if we choose to dwell on different points.
So among individuals, friends, acquaintances, Facebook friends and groups, it's better to pass up most, if not all debates. It's too easy to get sucked into debates, especially online. Whether you're just answering a simple question or if you decided just to put your two cents in, you may find like a gambling addict that you've managed to waste a lot more than two cents. And just like a casino, your chances of "winning" were somewhat random no matter your skill, knowledge, or experience. Perhaps this point is debatable, but it may be best just to agree to disagree before you agree to argue. Sometimes you find that you can't stop a debate once it starts, it becomes a monster constantly taunting your ego to fight like a man. Maybe the level of discourse has even sunk so low on your opponents part that you wonder if the mask of civility is off and if perhaps the proverbial gloves should come off as well. When you come to this point where you can no longer simply agree to disagree, try this instead:
Agree to dis-argue.
And remember, social skills are survival skills after all.
btw, if you feel like a winner, click on the sword fight image above to collect your prize.
