Is better understanding of an opposing viewpoint achieved through reflection or rebuttal?

First, I hate debating. I find that it gets to adverserial and to me that clouds the points.

Second, the thing’s I have learned here are mainly due to a few people who give me real life examples or scenario’s that I may not have thought of nor experienced. I do care about facts only to the degree that they affect real people. Reflection.

I don’t know that it’s possible to learn or understand another person’s point of view without listening and reflecting. But part of constructing a good rebuttal is the need to not only listen and reflect on the content of what the other person said, but try to understand why the that person said the thing you’re constructing a rebuttal to.

In other words, there’s nothing to presenting a rebuttal to an opposing viewpoint. That’s easy. But presenting a good rebuttal requires not only an understanding of that viewpoint, but the motive for presenting it in the way it was presented. And in striving for that understanding, sometimes I will change my own view.

This is one of the reasons that I enjoy debate.

Writing this answer reminds me of that classic Monty Python sketch on arguments:

An argument isn’t just contradiction.
It can be.
No it can’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
No it isn’t.
Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.
Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Yes, but that’s not just saying ‘No it isn’t.’
Yes it is!
No it isn’t!
Yes it is!
Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

(short pause)
No it isn’t.

@glacial . . . so does that make the dead parrot bit an intellectual process or the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes?

or just a lengthy intro to the lumberjack song?

I was once an anti-immigrant, anti-tax, pro-capitalist, racist who changed completely as a result of being challenged through debate. Of course, reflection was critical, but direct challenge to my shitty beliefs forced me to face the fact that I had no valid reason to support any of it.

Argument has been been my preferred activity with my good friends since high school. When we get together, there’s still a pretty good chance that we’ll get into a really heated argument. For a long time, we’d use the exercise as a chance to argue for the “other side” in a debate. That was really helpful for me. It would either cause a revelation that my true position was flawed or it would be helpful in truly understanding why my position was important.

Anyway, I am a serious introvert, so reflection is my main hobby. But I love a good discussion (or debate). Fluther has been really enlightening for me. As an introvert who only socializes occasionally, my exposure to direct conversations with opposing viewpoints more often comes in the form of devil’s advocate. To converse with real live Americans who’s experience is vastly-different than mine can be mind-blowing.

@Blondesjon I’d vote for the latter, personally… although the man with the parrot did explain himself rather thoroughly on the state of the parrot. The shopkeeper was a bit of a gainsayer.

no he wasn’t

He was.

@glacial – You realize that any reference to Monty Python immediately sends me to youtube to start watching Flying Circus sketches, right? It’s some kind of Pavlovian response. Damn you. My night is wasted.

Mwahahahahahaha!

Agreed on both points except I have sometimes changed my mind on a topic through listening and reflecting.

Debating, to me, is almost a sport – not an opportunity to learn. As such, I tend to do less debating as I get older. Too much work, not enough zen.

It’s a good question, I think, but part of the answer depends on why you started a debate in the first place. Most people don’t enter a debate “to learn”, but they do it “to win the debate”. Sometimes learning is explicitly not a goal of the parties in the debate. (Those who listen to the debate reflectively, however, and not as a fan of one or the other parties in the debate, can obviously learn something – even more than “who is better at debate”.)

I frequently debate on the side of an idea that I already know I oppose, just to see what proofs others can put forward to make the arguments that I’d rather make, or to find weak points in the argument that I might have made. (It’s a waste of time to do that if you only make bad debate points, or straw man arguments or other bad faith or illogical positions / premises, but you can see a lot of that, too.) So by trying to obtain the facts and marshal the arguments against your favored side, you almost have to learn something. (Sometimes the things you learn are the facts that the other side would rather hide, too.)

It also frequently matters who you debate and in what venue. Some of the best times in my life were spent in my parents’ living room debating issues of the day with my father. He would frequently counter any “pro” argument that I might make with a thoughtful “anti” argument just to get us started. But I was debating him, not some yahoo out to make points in front of a large audience at my expense. I knew that I wouldn’t “lose the debate” if I admitted that there were things I didn’t know, for example. (Usually our only audience was my mother, who would occasionally interject a ‘question from the floor’ or ask for clarification – or correct Dad’s vocabulary, since it would not have been smart for me to do that as a debater – and usually take my side when I nearly inevitably lost the debate on all grounds – and learned a great deal in the process.)

This thread is far too silly

I think the best way to understand an opposing viewpoint is to debate from that viewpoint. It forces you to objectively study the arguments for that side against your own nature and form arguments that make sense to you.

That is one thing that is prohibited on Fluther. At least, doing so anonymously is. I’ve asked.

I think many of us could try to focus more on persuasive debate, rather than expository. More “These are the reasons I feel I am right, perhaps you could see this as well” and less “You’re wrong and here’s why”.

@Seek_Kolinahr I think that hits the nail on the head:
I think many of us could try to focus more on persuasive debate, rather than expository. More “These are the reasons I feel I am right, perhaps you could see this as well” and less “You’re wrong and here’s why”.

I feel that the worst form of insult is condescension and to me, “You’re wrong and here’s why” is pure condescension. There’s a chance you might convince me that you’re right, not much of a snowball’s chance you are going to convince me that I’m wrong.

Listening is very instructive.

I think it depends on the personalities of the people. If it’s 2 angry stubborn people, it probably won’t be all that productive…

Silly or not, I think this is a valid and useful question. Certainly you learn more from reflecting on your opponent’s position than from just cherry picking parts of it to attack without ever holistically understanding what is being said. You can also learn a great deal by reading someone’s response and then, if you detect flaws in their logic or the premises they are basing their argument on, asking them questions in a non-challenging way. You might say, I am really trying to understand your point about X, but I am a little confused. Can you help me understand why you are so certain it is X, and Y couldn’t possibly explain it?

I go into debates hoping to either learn or teach. I’ve changed my political stripes and my religious beliefs profoundly thanks to what I learned debating. But I often encounter people whose entire world view depends on their being right on some core belief they hold, and they will hand wave, tap dance, obfuscate and if need be just gainsay everything you throw out, no matter how well you reflect on what they are saying.

Ultimately, for most things, one side is right and the other is wrong. Back when we were debating the geocentirc versus the heliocentric models of the Universe, the geocentric crowd considered their view fundamental to their world view of the inerrancy of scripture, because the Bible quite clearly states that the Earth is the center of the solar system and the stars in the heavens as well. So geocentrists were adamant about their beliefs, and evidence to the contrary was irrelevant to them.

When you realize that you are up against someone who is simply incapable of changing their opinion regardless of what proofs you provide, save your breath and agree to disagree.

A position that cannot withstand a challenge is not a strong position. I respect opposing viewpoints that are logical and can withstand scrutiny, but cannot respect even agreeing viewpoints that aren’t/can’t. So I find debate often healthy, so long as it stays civil.

Both things are valuable tools for me. I adore debate, and have learned (and sometimes taught) a lot by engaging in vigorous debate. I’ve even learned a lot by just being a spectator to others’ debates. But whether in debate or in life in general, without reflection, I would have learned nothing. And I certainly would have had less success in teaching anything!

On the necessity of reflection: Part of being a good debater is presenting your viewpoints in a way that meets your opponent where they are, understanding their intellectual and/or emotional needs, and framing your rebuttal to meet those needs. I really dislike the use of condescension and superior attitude in a debate. I’ve been guilty of it myself on occasion, and I’m always disappointed with myself afterward. Not only is it unlikely to win anyone over to your viewpoint, it hurts people. That matters. Debate shouldn’t be like a game of whack-a-mole.

I disagree with @ETpro‘s premiss, “Ultimately, for most things, one side is right and the other is wrong.”

That is EXACTLY the attitude which allowed the geocentric to prevail as long as they did: “the geocentric crowd considered their view fundamental to their world view”.

Human’s probably understand less that .00000001% of what makes the world tick, and being ‘certain’ is a prescription for disaster.

@ibstubro – I’m confused. Are you arguing that imperfect knowledge of everything keeps us from being able to make any statement of fact? Is there no method of determining what is “true” better than the other? Before I continue, I don’t want to put words in your mouth. What is your position here?

Antagonistic debate (provided it sticks to the issues and doesn’t degenerate into a brawl) can actually be very effective at making you understand someone else’s viewpoint. Effective debating requires that you not only hear what your opponent is saying, but that you anticipate how your opponent might counter your own points. To do that effectively, you have to accurately model his position in your own mind. After all, if it isn’t accurate, then you risk being blindsided by an argument that you didn’t see coming. Getting outmaneuvered in a debate may not be a conversion experience, but it will definitely get your attention.

Listening receptively has its place, too. When you’re facing not a foe but an open listener, your guard goes down and there can be an intimacy that allows you to reveal your vulnerabilities and feelings. That’s a different kind of exchange than the rigorous and systematic rationality that debate fosters.

There’s a tradition among Tibetan monks of using debate as a training method. Monks, one seated and one standing, square off and fire challenges at each other. This keeps going until one gets stymied. It’s fun to watch. They get very physical about it.

@ibstubro I am pretty sure you are not saying that it is still impossible to know whether the Sun orbits the earth, or vice versa. Yes, for a long time, the crowd on the wrong side of the argument were the majority. But that had nothing to do with whether they were right or wrong. There was a right answer, and there was a wrong answer. That is all I am saying.

I never made any argument that humans know ANYTHING with certainty. We can only know what currently best described observed phenomena. But our not knowing with absolute certainty does not mean things aren’t absolutely certain. If there were no certainty to the laws of physics, the entire universe would be utter chaos and no observation of events could ever make sense of predict future events.

I look forward to your response to @tom_g, because that same question is what I am getting at above.