Intellectual Honesty in Political Debates -- a Naive Expectation in this Current Day in Time?
For some time now, I have wanted to look up something that kept ringing a distant bell, distant as in the rules of debate I learned in high school. Just let me say that was not exactly yesterday, so I needed some backup for my opinion before posting here.
The specific maneuver I wanted to discuss was that of name calling. I am sure you are aware we are at this point breaking into a critical period of the Presidential election contest as far as defining the issues are concerned. With the events of this week, the act of "name calling" was once again on my mind to research. I think it is a good idea as we observe the contest, to keep in mind all of the techniques that will be used in the discussion.
Here is a link to an interesting conversation on the subject:
http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html
I was not surprised to see as number one on the list provided the topic I was researching:
"Here is a list of the intellectually-dishonest debate tactics I have identified thus far. I would appreciate any help from readers to expand the list or to better define each tactic. I am numbering the list in order to refer back to it quickly elsewhere at this Web site.
"1. Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive; for example, cult members and bad real estate gurus typically warn the targets of their frauds that “dream stealers” will try to tell them the cult or guru is giving them bad advice; name calling is only intellectually dishonest when the name in question is ill defined or is so subjective that it tells the listener more about the speaker than the person being spoken about; there is nothing wrong with using a name that is relevant and objectively defined; the most common example of name calling against me is “negative;” in coaching, the critics of coaches are often college professors and the word “professor” is used as a name-calling tactic by the coaches who are the targets of the criticism in question; as a coach, I have been criticized as being “too intense,” a common put-down of successful youth and high school coaches. People who criticize their former employer are dishonestly dismissed as “disgruntled” or “bitter.” These are all efforts to distract the audience by changing the subject because the speaker cannot refute the facts or logic of the opponent."
But read the entire article if you have the time. Unfortunately, you will see some names listed in the article that make you feel a little chagrined; however, we are discussing this subject on a political website so it truly is not surprising, is it?
But here is another paragraph, number 13 in the order the author of this piece has assembled:
13. "Claiming privacy with regard to claims about self: debater makes favorable claims about himself, but when asked for details or proof of the claims, refuses to provide any claiming privacy; true privacy is not mentioning them to begin with; bragging but refusing to prove is silly on its face and it is a rather self-servingly selective use of the right of privacy; The worst offenders are the U.S. Navy SEALs who claim to be great but they “not at liberty” to reveal the details because they are military secrets. Enough details have leaked out, however, that those not in the SEAL cult of personality can see that if you could buy the SEALs for what they are worth and sell them for what they claim to be worth, you would have a substantial capital gain."
Obviously, we can take exception to some of his statements if we so choose, but as for the essential heading "Claiming privacy with regard to claims about self" that certainly reminds me of a certain Republican Presidential contender and a taxing problem he is currently experiencing!
But to climb back on an orthodox track, here in a link which contains Roberts' Rules of Order, the accepted standard in this arena:
http://www.bartleby.com/176/1.html
in case you would like to do some further research on the subject. But try to check out #24 on the first posted link and let me know if that reminds you of anyone!
And here is a question for you: is the presence of intellectual honesty in a political debate simply a naive expectation in this day and time or is that a requirement for you personally in order to cast a vote for a candidate? Or perhaps it NEVER existed in our political history?
Thanks for reading.
Sam
= new reply since forum marked as read
None of this is a shot at you, it's a shot at whoever Reed is.
"Although I am fond of intellectually-honest debate, about 90% to 95% of the statements made by my opponents to prove that I am wrong have been of the intellectually-dishonest variety." is one of the most unintentionally hilarious statements I've seen in a while. When I saw that I automatically thought "Libertarian!". Can't imagine why.
The names didn't make me feel chagrined, his godawful attempts at logic and his constant insistence that he thinks intellectual honesty important did. His first lie is in his second sentence. ("I welcome intellectually honest debate."
His second lie is in his third sentence. ("It is one of my favorite ways to test my theories and learn." He's interested in neither. He's interested in rehearsing his own prejudices and opinions and insisting anything contrary is intellectually dishonest, as he makes abundantly clear.
Some examples:
#34 is positively absurd. Apparently he's declared himself the sole arbiter of rights. Which he then proceeds to complain about others doing in #39.
#35 isn't hyperbole, it's a lie. The communists of the USSR and China were not particularly concerned with the environment. They were among the most destructive to it. They're the polar opposite of the Greens. So his example of an opponent being intellectually dishonest is the opponent objecting to an outright falsehood. Even if weren't utterly false, it would be the strawman he's whining about in #21, the innuendo he's whining about in #25, or the insinuation he's whining about in #27 depending on how he presented it and what he was responding to. I suspect his definition of "hyperbole" amounts to "It's hyperbole when I do it, and name calling when you do it.". Sadly he fails to provide very much context for anything he wrote. I say "sadly" because given some of the delusion and what are probably either lies or completely misremembered half-truths in what he did write I suspect it would involve rocket ships, fighting dinosaurs, and being trained as a Jedi Knight.
Name calling is a perfectly valid position when your opponent has stated the rules of the debate as "To be intellectually honest, you must never disagree with me." They've clearly demonstrated they have no desire whatsoever to engage in honest debate, so you might as well mock them and get some fun out of it. (Which is why I'm mocking him. There's no reason to engage his "points" any further when his rules are self refuting.)
In short, he's an arrogant dick and not particularly bright. If self-importance had mass he'd have long since destroyed our solar system as all the celestial bodies collapsed inward into a singularity of stupidity. (You know, so he knows what hyperbole actually looks like.)
End rant at Reed.
I'd personally love to see more intellectual honesty in politics. I don't think it ever really existed, nor do I think it will happen any time soon, but I'd love to see it. And if I made it a requirement for me to vote for a candidate, I'd never vote for anyone. Including myself, I suspect. Everyone has their blind spots.
Edited to add: All the ranty stuff is directed at Reed, not at you. I have no desire to call you names or insult you in any way, and actually like your OP. Intellectual honesty would be nice, but with all our own blind spots I'm not sure we could even see it if it ever happened.
