Is it possible to debate for something you don't believe?

[darkism]

Something must be in the water at this university. This is the second time this semester I've been in a debate on the WRONG SIDE - the one that I disagree with.

They told me then and they tell me now, "you don't have to agree with an issue to debate it."

Excuse me? WTF kind of reasoning is that?

Get a load of this question:

With a republican president, republican congress, republican-appointed Supreme Court and a republican-drafted Patriot Act, is the United States losing he ideals advocated by Locke and becoming a totalitarian state, that exercises tyrannical control just as deTocqueville suggested?

Now, we all know the answer is OF COURSE IT IS, WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE.

But I've been designated to debate the OTHER side. How am I supposed to argue with a straight face that the US is NOT turning into a fascist state?

BTW, the professor is a liberal and knows that I am too. I tried to reason with her but she would hear none of it.

"You don't have to agree with an issue to debate it." What a crock!

[pnb]

1. of course it is

People do it in debate classes all the time. Its about the usage of technique and logic.

My wife took debate courses where she and others would take turns debating subjects from BOTH sides. And she could often win either way.

Kind of explains why I always lose arguments with her...LOL

[fertilizeonarbusto]

2. It is

If not, there would be no lawyers. Look on this as a mental exercise. And, if you are really perversely clever, go overboard in your argument and let what you do not say but infer point to how you really feel about this issue.

[huskerlaw]

17. Completely true

I'm a lawyer, I have to debate the "wrong" side all the time. Use it as an opportunity to learn the other side of the debate, which will only serve to make your real opinion stronger and more factually based.

As an undergrad, I was forced to spend an entire semester playing the role of Republican candidate in a mock Senate election. Highly enlightening experience. I do feel for you though, it's not easy.

[NVMojo]

3. ask any contrarian personality!

[TahitiNut]

55. You called?

:silly:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. She is absolutely correct

If you debate the PRO side of an argument you are against, you will REALLY empower yourself to debate the issue from YOUR side in the future. The professor is doing you a HUGE favor to get outside your own frame of reference. She WANTS you to work at FORMULATING debate points..harder work when you don't agree with the point you are debating.

[emulatorloo]

5. Yes of course, people do it all the time

Imagine you are being paid big bucks by the Republican Party to go on the cable talking head shows to promote the Bush agenda.

[tk2kewl]

6. the idea, of course, is to construct a logical and defensible argument

defensible may be a bit difficult in this particular case, however

[Dora]

7. No, she's right.

You have to be able to construct an argument, regardless of how you feel. Mercenary, but true.

What a suck. I'm willing to wager that your professor has some pretty high expectations of you if she thinks you can handle it. Yeah, it's a drag, but I'm sure you'll do great.

You can't fight the current without getting in the water. Dive in!

[Philostopher]

8. Actually ...

It makes some sense. Maybe your instructor thinks the best way to learn to come at ideas you disagree with is to study them well enough to be able to argue them even if you don't agree with them. That way, you get a better concept of how to construct defenses of the issues you do agree with -- you can see what the strong points are about ideas you don't like, and learn how the people against whom you're debating will come at you.

It's uncomfortable, doubtless -- but I suspect this is the motivation, here.

[ixat]

19. Love your nick, Philostopher. Zappa fan, I presume?

[Philostopher]

47. Yeah, I picked up on FZ long about 'Dancing Fool,'

but I've heard most of it, by now. The Lounge will occasionally break out in Zappa jokes -- kind of like an infection.

[ixat]

54. :D "Treacherous Cretins"

[thoughtanarchist]

9. Have fun with it...

I was asked to debate the viewpoint that tabloids provided legit news. It was fun. I hinged upon the premise that there was no truely objective news source and that you're in the same position regardless of where your info comes from... You need to verify independantly the info you "consume".


I'd suggest compiling the most ridiculous whacked-out freeper-ish viewpoints and pushing extreme irrational arguements. Basically, throw the debate!

:evilgrin:

[The Doctor.]

13. I've used the 'reality is too subjective to be real' approach too,

must not get lost or go too far, the trick is to keep the subject at the top of every argument.

I'd try making the case that a one-party system is more effective... look out for that quagmire!

[charlie]

10. It'll be tough

But if you go through with it and argue the wrong side, I mean really put in an effort to think it through and make the case, it won't make you a rightwinger. It'll make you formidable. You'll never get blindsided by a knuckledragger because you'll know his arguments thoroughly.

[The Doctor.]

11. Yes, it is...

It's just more of a challenge.

I've never lost a debate, and I've often taking the side I don't personally agree with.

[pelagius]

12. This is good stuff!

Knowing both sides of the argument well helps you in real life to speak persuasively about the things you really believe in. Instead of saying "stupid freepers" (out loud at least :-)) you can meet their arguments head on using their own logic.

When I was in college debate, my professor would flip a coin just as the teams got on stage to determine who would argue which position. I remember once getting hammered in a debate by my roommate, despite the fact that we both passionately shared the belief he was arguing against.

[InvisibleBallots]

14. No, it's impossible

It's impossible to debate for something you don't believe.

[MadHound]

15. She's right, your prof. You don't have to agree with a position

To debate in favor of it. This is standard high school and college rhetoric/debate. It forces one to learn about a position from all sides of the issue, and forces you to think critically, and outside your normal box. This has been standard fair for eons in high school and college debate squads. When I debated, I was forced to debate in favor of issues that I was morally opposed to, but in the long run, I'm glad I did. It forced me examine such issues closely, and in the end, made my original position that much stronger because I know that the intellectual and moral underpinnings of the opposing side was baseless.

This is also standard fare for lawyers. They are forced to debate issues of life or death, crime and punishment no matter what their personal beliefs are. Rumor is that Johnny Cochran was convinced that OJ was guilty, yet he was paid handsomely to prove OJ innocent, and he did a very good job.

Think of this as an opportunity to try and destroy your beliefs. If they are still standing after such a test, then you know that they are the correct ones.

[UpsideDownFlag]

16. sure it is. when i was on my colleges debate team, i did it all the time.

?

[jobycom]

18. Kennedy's definition of genius

was to able to understand and agree with two completely different points of view at the same time. You have to see why the other side believes as they do in order to be absolutely sure they are not right. If you can't see their point of view, then you're own point of view is just dogma, because you haven't considered all sides of the argument.

There are three basic results of understanding the other side: one, you change your mind and accept that your point was incomplete (won't happen in this case), two, understand more completely why the other side is wrong because you see exactly where their argument is incomplete, or three, you realize that both ideas are equally grounded in logic, and therefore your difference is a matter of opinion. When you can clearly tell which is which, then you smoke the other guys when supporting your own point of view.

Take your professor's assignment, and do your best to win that argument. If you do, then when it's over you can tell the other side where they missed their opportunities. You can make them better debaters. Read threads here, and see how little you learn when everyone agrees with everyone else. The best threads are the painful, bloody bar room brawls.

[Piperay]

20. Sure

I have done it. I can argue both sides of any issue and it is actually fun. :-)

[Gothmog]

21. Debate involves the ability to see arguments on both sides

I debated in high school and college. In order to debate, you have to be able to take either side and advance the best constructed arguments for your position. To do this you must be able to conceptualize and advocate both the favorable and unfavorable arguments for any position.

The whole concept of a trial system is that by both sides advocating their positions, the truth will emerge.

Debate has help me to analyze positions.

[Bridget Burke]

22. Yes, that's the essense of Debate.

High School debaters do this every weekend. Learn the subject, draw straws at the meet to find out your "side."

If you really can't do this--Is it too late to drop the class? How does it relate to your major?

[City Lights]

23. My 7th grader had to do it in school in her public speaking class.

She wasn't thrilled about it, but she did it anyway. One topic they were debating was gay marriage and she was assigned to the team that had to argue against it. One of the three kids on her team was opposed to gay marriage, so two of them had to argue against something they agreed with.

[ComerPerro]

24. Channel a FReeper

start talking about God, and Jesus, and killing everyone who disagrees with Bush or who looks "unAmerican", fawn over Bush, make threats about invading France or Canada, and quote O'Reilley, Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Fallwell.

If my professor made me do this, I would temporarily transform myself into the biggest fundimentalist asshole Bushbot on the planet.

[politicat]

25. Yes, and in fact, it's a very important way to learn so you can defend

your own positions better.

In college, I did Lincoln Douglas debate, and ended up on the side I don't agree with more times than I can count - one year it was physician assisted suicide, one year it was teen age abortion. I totally know the other position and can argue it to a standstill because I know both sides very well.

The reason you're on the side you're on is so that you can look at both sides and become even better informed.

Good luck. It's hard to set aside your own politics and look at the situation from a neutral perspective, which is what you need to do.

Pcat

[indigobusiness]

26. Critical thinking involves the merits of a debate

not the politics of opinion.

Respect your proffesor's authoriti.

[gottaB]

27. No, not in good faith

The purpose of debate should be to interrogate one's beliefs. That purpose is not served by interrogating pretend beliefs.

[indigobusiness]

28. That's nonsense.

Debate is not about dogmatic assertions.

[gottaB]

29. Debate is not about dogmatic assertions: I agree

Debate is about interrogating one's beliefs.

If, for the sake of debate, you take a position you believe to be a dogmatic assertion, merely pretending that you believe it to be your own true opinion, you are merely pretending to debate.

[indigobusiness]

30. Debate does not involve belief.

That is the realm of dogma.

[gottaB]

32. Of course debate involves belief

If you believe the same things after you debate that you believed before you debated, in what sense have you genuinely debated?

[indigobusiness]

36. Belief involves opinion.

Opinion cannot be debated.

[gottaB]

37. Of course it can.

For example, it's my opinion that genuine debate requires that one expresses what one believes to be true. That's debatable, as you are so aptly demonstrating.

[indigobusiness]

38. Expressing opinion as fact is dogma.

We're back to that.

[gottaB]

40. yes, expressing opinion as fact is dogma

Debate is not about dogmatic assertions.

Debate is about interrogating one's beliefs.

[indigobusiness]

41. Circular logic

is not debate.

Belief is irrelevant. The merits of belief can be debated.

[gottaB]

42. The merits of belief cannot be debated independently of actual belief

It is quite possible that we do not agree on what exactly constitutes "belief" or "a belief." We cannot productively debate the merits of belief without first defining the phenomenon, and to attempt to do so without reference to an actual belief would be meaningless. The most reliable way to provide an example of a belief is to say something you believe to be true. Investigating a pretend belief will not yield genuine insights into the nature of belief.

[indigobusiness]

46. Debate is impersonal and unbiased

or worthless.

[gottaB]

48. Debate is edifying to the persons who participate in it.

Debate is worthwhile to the extent that it cuts through bias
and reveals transcendent insights to the persons who participate in it. If the person is not genuinely engaged in debate, the debate cannot be genuinely edifying.

[indigobusiness]

49. You are rationalizing the nature of formal debate...

rather than accepting its definitive structure and purpose.

[gottaB]

51. interesting.

I would say your position on the function of debate relies too heavily on its formal characteristics, and thereby misses its original, primary purpose. But I am curious. Can you explain to me how, in your view, I am rationalizing the nature of formal debate?

[Xithras]

52. Argument vs debate...Debate is a discussion of FACTS, not opinion.

I think that many people confuse the concepts of "arguing a position" and "debating a topic". They have different goals and different methodologies.

Properly done, a debate should be a simple public exchange of facts supporting opposite sides of a position, supported by the inclusion of any facts by the two parties that negate their opponents position. The goal of a properly formed debate is to civilly present two sides of a topic that the listener can analyze both sides and build their own conclusions.

Arguing a position, on the other hand, is less about laying out facts than pursuading the listener to your side using a combination of facts and emotional presentation. The objective of arguing a position isn't a neutral presentation of a topic to a neutral listener, but a directed and focused attempt to sway the listener to your worldview.

Anyone can argue a position, but learning to debate is a completely different skill, and one that seems to be fading in our world today. If done properly, anyone should be able to debate ANY position, no matter how distateful it may be to them.

[gottaB]

53. The goal of debate proper is to interrogate opinions

Formal debate is but a subspecies of debate which is a species of dialogue. If I've allowed anything to be confused, it is not the distinction between argument vs. debate, but that which separates debate from dialogue. My position is that debate partakes of the essence of dialogue. The requirements you mentioned, that debate present two opposing sides of an issue for the consideration of a third party, I consider to be secondary to the primary purpose of debate, which derives from the essence of dialogue. I might prefer using the term "reasoned debate" to "formal debate" in order to clarify my position.

You will get no argument from me on the question of substituting opinions for facts. I think we might be able to agree that topics for debate may be regarded as instruments for developing opinions--but I'm not sure. What sort of knowledge, in your view, does a debate primarily touch on? Is it knowledge about a specific topic of debate? Is that the extent of it?

[rman]

31. well, this is a mock-debate in a way

the topic starter already has debated this and has made up his mind.

presumably he knows some of the other sides' arguments, so it would be a matter of playing advocate of the devil.

[gottaB]

33. I don't deny the heuristic value of comparing different opinions

I'm saying that such an exercize doesn't constitute debate.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

34. (Dons asbestos)

I think it's a morally corrupt activity. Arguing for some you don't believe? Seems a course of action typical of those corrupt RW pseudo-Christians, to name one instance.

[Lone Pawn]

35. Sorry, she's right--that's the heart of debate. n/t

[Az]

39. This is a vital skill

How else are you going to be able to plan your course of attack if you do not understand how the opposition will act. It is a task of placing yourself in the oppositions place. If you cannot understand them (you don't have to agree) then you cannot effectively defend against them.

[nini]

43. yes..

it happens all the time - especially in the court room.

[Nikia]

44. I have gotten my best grades debating from the other side

I think that it is because I already know the position that I am debating against. I also know the position that I am debating for because I study it in preparation for the debate. Once you have prepared your material, it really is just acting.

[seabeyond]

45. piece of cake

i argued with a smart ass that the holocaust wasnt real, and even knowing i was a liberal calif and he a conservative texan, he still bought into me debating this with him.

know your stuff and easy as pie

[Runcible Spoon]

50. It's a good learning experience.

you will really get an illuminating education about the mindset of your enemy if you approach a topic from another context. I remember having to do that in 8th grade debate class. As an anthropologist, I somtimes have to sit through interviews with freepish types and deal with their opinions objectively, but really, it DOES expand your understanding of a topic.