Steem Pope Sermon: Civil Debate

jacobtothe (70)in #steempope • 7 years ago (edited)

Online discourse should be an opportunity to explore ideas and learn new things. Usually though, it turns into an unproductive mess as soon as any conflict is introduced to any given echo chamber. Here are some ideas to keep conversations civil and productive.

Avoid informal fallacies

A formal fallacy is an error in the structure of an argument, and you should certainly avoid those as well, but informal fallacies demonstrate disregard for both your own position and that of those with whom you disagree. There are a lot, but those used online tend to fall into a few specific types.

Ad Hominem
Instead of addressing the argument made, the response attacks the person making the argument. It's frustrating to receive this response, and if you respond to others in this fashion, it indicates weakness in your own position if you can't rationally support it directly. There's a difference between "You're wrong because you're an idiot," and, "You're wrong, here's why, and by the way, you're an idiot, too."

Appeal to Popularity
It doesn't matter how many people agree with something. Belief does not create truth. Popular support does not make something right. "No one agrees with you" does not disprove anything.

Appeal to Authority
It doesn't matter who asserts a position. Personalities and titles have no bearing on reason. Officials do not override reality. Celebrities are not experts by default on anything.

False equivalence
Comparing apples and oranges is very popular. So is comparing apples and orangutans. Things that are not equivalent should not be arued against as though they were. It is sufficient to point out the flaw in the comparison.

False dichotomy
When presented with option A or option B, why is there an implicit assumption that there are no alternatives beyond the ones presented?

Shifting the burden of proof
The one presenting the positive argument bears the burden of proof. When you ask someone to prove a negative, or say why a course of action should not be taken, you have avoided taking responsibility for defense of your own position.

Nirvana Fallacy
"I reject your solution because it is not absolutely perfect!" Don't confuse this with rejection of a solution because it has serious valid flaws, but beware of offering this response because someone cannot answer contrived lifeboat scenarios or extremely peculiar circumstances.

This only brushes the surface, but when a rebuttal causes you to cringe, it's potentially your gut reaction to someone avoiding the discussion with an informal fallacy.

Handling heated discussions

When you encounter someone with whom you deeply disagree, there are a few possibilities.

They are not educated in rational discourse.
Keep your cool and make calm explanations defending your position while describing why their responses are not in fact responsive. Treat them like adults though, and try not to be condescending.

They are not interested in rational discourse.
Some people just want to rant. State your case and then let them vent. Brush it off. Some people cool down and consider the conversation after they are past the heat of the moment.

They want discourse, but are invested in their own position.
Discuss the ideas, and defend your position while seriously considering theirs. Maybe they have some mistaken preconceptions. There's even the possibility you are wrong yourself, at least in part, so don't discount that.

It's a troll out to sow discord
Drop the conversation. Don't feed the troll.