CDZ Is Debate Essential to Democracy?

[Circe]

Alan Dershowitz complained bitterly in The Hill that his erstwhile friends on Martha's Vineyard have "shunned" him and refuse to invite him to their parties and dinners. This has hit the news cycle and a lot of op-eds have been written about it, most about how uncivil leftists now are. Dershowitz claims to be a major progressive, though I'd say that's in doubt: he's issue-centric. I remember when he was a great torture fan during the Bush Administration. Now he's written a couple of sort-of pro-Trump books, though really they are about the legal issues around impeachment and criminalizing political activity, fair enough. I mean to read both.

The problem is that Dershowitz asserts that open debate is central to democracy: essential to democracy. So my guess is that a lot of his "shunning" is because he's a REALLY bad dinner guest. Age 79, so he's got senior status and doesn't care what he says; and the best trial lawyer in the nation, I bet this guy never loses an argument, and that's seriously annoying. So when he comes to their parties, he argues all night about politics and wins ---- yeah, I'd stop inviting him, too. He's a pain.

But dozens of talkers have been writing op-eds and books all over claiming the same: that we HAVE to debate, have to talk (or yell) it all out, that this is essential to democracy. I don't agree --- I always thought it was the Secret Ballot that was central to democracy, and that's the exact opposite from quarreling it out. The secret ballot means you watch the news, you see what's going on, you vote and no one knows who you voted for unless you tell them, and that's how Trump won: we didn't tell.

Here we volunteer for debate. I have limits on it: I put the one-line obscene insult posters on ignore directly, and a lot of the others who are longer but just as nasty. Nevertheless, I'm here by choice when I am. But that family reunion in Boston this summer? Not really a choice, and I expect they will try to eat me up. I'm reading a lot of personal boundaries books so I can avoid being a victim, and I'll leave if people are rude. I won't talk politics no matter what! I'm announcing the old etiquette rule: in general company, never talk about politics, religion, or money.

What do you all think about the determination of many to argue politics in-person at social meetings?

 

[william the wie]

I tend to argue about the financial and economic problems of the two parties that can really bug people.

 

[sartre play]

Yes, debate not insults.

 

[oldsoul]

Alan Dershowitz complained bitterly in The Hill that his erstwhile friends on Martha's Vineyard have "shunned" him and refuse to invite him to their parties and dinners. This has hit the news cycle and a lot of op-eds have been written about it, most about how uncivil leftists now are. Dershowitz claims to be a major progressive, though I'd say that's in doubt: he's issue-centric. I remember when he was a great torture fan during the Bush Administration. Now he's written a couple of sort-of pro-Trump books, though really they are about the legal issues around impeachment and criminalizing political activity, fair enough. I mean to read both.

The problem is that Dershowitz asserts that open debate is central to democracy: essential to democracy. So my guess is that a lot of his "shunning" is because he's a REALLY bad dinner guest. Age 79, so he's got senior status and doesn't care what he says; and the best trial lawyer in the nation, I bet this guy never loses an argument, and that's seriously annoying. So when he comes to their parties, he argues all night about politics and wins ---- yeah, I'd stop inviting him, too. He's a pain.

But dozens of talkers have been writing op-eds and books all over claiming the same: that we HAVE to debate, have to talk (or yell) it all out, that this is essential to democracy. I don't agree --- I always thought it was the Secret Ballot that was central to democracy, and that's the exact opposite from quarreling it out. The secret ballot means you watch the news, you see what's going on, you vote and no one knows who you voted for unless you tell them, and that's how Trump won: we didn't tell.

Here we volunteer for debate. I have limits on it: I put the one-line obscene insult posters on ignore directly, and a lot of the others who are longer but just as nasty. Nevertheless, I'm here by choice when I am. But that family reunion in Boston this summer? Not really a choice, and I expect they will try to eat me up. I'm reading a lot of personal boundaries books so I can avoid being a victim, and I'll leave if people are rude. I won't talk politics no matter what! I'm announcing the old etiquette rule: in general company, never talk about politics, religion, or money.

What do you all think about the determination of many to argue politics in-person at social meetings?

If you find a willing participant, and you can agree upon what etiquette is the standard, go for it. Otherwise, talk about the weather, or whatever else strikes your fancy.

But dozens of talkers have been writing op-eds and books all over claiming the same: that we HAVE to debate, have to talk (or yell) it all out, that this is essential to democracy. I don't agree --- I always thought it was the Secret Ballot that was central to democracy, and that's the exact opposite from quarreling it out. The secret ballot means you watch the news, you see what's going on, you vote and no one knows who you voted for unless you tell them, and that's how Trump won: we didn't tell.

On this, I must agree, and disagree. Yes, technically you are correct, the secret ballot is central to our system. However, to be a well informed voter, one MUST understand ALL sides of an issue. Therefore, debate is essential to being an informed voter. Whether you are an active participant or a casual observer, is less important. While one can gain a general understanding by observing a debate, one would find it difficult to fully form a position, and be able to defend it, without engaging in debate, on some level at least. Of course the higher level of debate you engage in, the better formulated your position will be.

 

[Picaro]

Most people don't know what 'debate' is, so it's a moot issue.

Restrict voting to literate people who can pass basic civics tests on their, local, state, and Federal govts., and you have eliminated a large chunk of the Village Idiot Vote right off the bat, and THEN hold 'debates' for those demographics that have the best chance of knowing what is being 'debated'; it's not a magic bullet, but it's basic common sense for a start. All 'debates' should be aired on our public airwaves, commercial free, and also made available in writing, and elections should be publicly funded, not by piles of PAC bribes and laundered foreign money, etc.

If you can't be bothered to learn basic civics, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote, period. We have school house all over the place where classes can be held for those not up to speed, so no excuses for not knowing the whats and hows of your govts.

 

[Picaro]

Yes, debate not insults.

Some 'insults' are in fact valid criticisms, as one learns in Logic classes past the intro stuff taken for elective credit and easy A's. Some people really are morons, traitors, mentally ill deviants, trolls and vermin, so it isn't 'insulting' them, it's just a highly relevant fact that bears on the topic being stated.

 

[jwoodie]

I do not think a debate is appropriate at a social gathering, but sometimes I obliquely touch on a political subject just to test a person's character and intelligence.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Alan Dershowitz complained bitterly in The Hill that his erstwhile friends on Martha's Vineyard have "shunned" him and refuse to invite him to their parties and dinners. This has hit the news cycle and a lot of op-eds have been written about it, most about how uncivil leftists now are. Dershowitz claims to be a major progressive, though I'd say that's in doubt: he's issue-centric. I remember when he was a great torture fan during the Bush Administration. Now he's written a couple of sort-of pro-Trump books, though really they are about the legal issues around impeachment and criminalizing political activity, fair enough. I mean to read both.

The problem is that Dershowitz asserts that open debate is central to democracy: essential to democracy. So my guess is that a lot of his "shunning" is because he's a REALLY bad dinner guest. Age 79, so he's got senior status and doesn't care what he says; and the best trial lawyer in the nation, I bet this guy never loses an argument, and that's seriously annoying. So when he comes to their parties, he argues all night about politics and wins ---- yeah, I'd stop inviting him, too. He's a pain.

But dozens of talkers have been writing op-eds and books all over claiming the same: that we HAVE to debate, have to talk (or yell) it all out, that this is essential to democracy. I don't agree --- I always thought it was the Secret Ballot that was central to democracy, and that's the exact opposite from quarreling it out. The secret ballot means you watch the news, you see what's going on, you vote and no one knows who you voted for unless you tell them, and that's how Trump won: we didn't tell.

Here we volunteer for debate. I have limits on it: I put the one-line obscene insult posters on ignore directly, and a lot of the others who are longer but just as nasty. Nevertheless, I'm here by choice when I am. But that family reunion in Boston this summer? Not really a choice, and I expect they will try to eat me up. I'm reading a lot of personal boundaries books so I can avoid being a victim, and I'll leave if people are rude. I won't talk politics no matter what! I'm announcing the old etiquette rule: in general company, never talk about politics, religion, or money.

What do you all think about the determination of many to argue politics in-person at social meetings?

The real Acid test of who are the real Democrats will be the Senate Vote on the SC Judge that Trump sent up for the vote. If any of those break ranks and votes for, then he will be the hero to show he has the moral values to stand for his beliefs

 

[sartre play]

YES.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Alan Dershowitz complained bitterly in The Hill that his erstwhile friends on Martha's Vineyard have "shunned" him and refuse to invite him to their parties and dinners. This has hit the news cycle and a lot of op-eds have been written about it, most about how uncivil leftists now are. Dershowitz claims to be a major progressive, though I'd say that's in doubt: he's issue-centric. I remember when he was a great torture fan during the Bush Administration. Now he's written a couple of sort-of pro-Trump books, though really they are about the legal issues around impeachment and criminalizing political activity, fair enough. I mean to read both.

The problem is that Dershowitz asserts that open debate is central to democracy: essential to democracy. So my guess is that a lot of his "shunning" is because he's a REALLY bad dinner guest. Age 79, so he's got senior status and doesn't care what he says; and the best trial lawyer in the nation, I bet this guy never loses an argument, and that's seriously annoying. So when he comes to their parties, he argues all night about politics and wins ---- yeah, I'd stop inviting him, too. He's a pain.

But dozens of talkers have been writing op-eds and books all over claiming the same: that we HAVE to debate, have to talk (or yell) it all out, that this is essential to democracy. I don't agree --- I always thought it was the Secret Ballot that was central to democracy, and that's the exact opposite from quarreling it out. The secret ballot means you watch the news, you see what's going on, you vote and no one knows who you voted for unless you tell them, and that's how Trump won: we didn't tell.

Here we volunteer for debate. I have limits on it: I put the one-line obscene insult posters on ignore directly, and a lot of the others who are longer but just as nasty. Nevertheless, I'm here by choice when I am. But that family reunion in Boston this summer? Not really a choice, and I expect they will try to eat me up. I'm reading a lot of personal boundaries books so I can avoid being a victim, and I'll leave if people are rude. I won't talk politics no matter what! I'm announcing the old etiquette rule: in general company, never talk about politics, religion, or money.

What do you all think about the determination of many to argue politics in-person at social meetings?

Self-Sacrifice to Supreme Beings

A debater imagines he is backing up a clique of entitled jerks who he imagines are above him. With that self-demeaning mindset, disagreeing with him is disagreeing with those he imagines are empowering him.

 

[task0778]

Alan Dershowitz complained bitterly in The Hill that his erstwhile friends on Martha's Vineyard have "shunned" him and refuse to invite him to their parties and dinners. This has hit the news cycle and a lot of op-eds have been written about it, most about how uncivil leftists now are. Dershowitz claims to be a major progressive, though I'd say that's in doubt: he's issue-centric. I remember when he was a great torture fan during the Bush Administration. Now he's written a couple of sort-of pro-Trump books, though really they are about the legal issues around impeachment and criminalizing political activity, fair enough. I mean to read both.

The problem is that Dershowitz asserts that open debate is central to democracy: essential to democracy. So my guess is that a lot of his "shunning" is because he's a REALLY bad dinner guest. Age 79, so he's got senior status and doesn't care what he says; and the best trial lawyer in the nation, I bet this guy never loses an argument, and that's seriously annoying. So when he comes to their parties, he argues all night about politics and wins ---- yeah, I'd stop inviting him, too. He's a pain.

But dozens of talkers have been writing op-eds and books all over claiming the same: that we HAVE to debate, have to talk (or yell) it all out, that this is essential to democracy. I don't agree --- I always thought it was the Secret Ballot that was central to democracy, and that's the exact opposite from quarreling it out. The secret ballot means you watch the news, you see what's going on, you vote and no one knows who you voted for unless you tell them, and that's how Trump won: we didn't tell.

Here we volunteer for debate. I have limits on it: I put the one-line obscene insult posters on ignore directly, and a lot of the others who are longer but just as nasty. Nevertheless, I'm here by choice when I am. But that family reunion in Boston this summer? Not really a choice, and I expect they will try to eat me up. I'm reading a lot of personal boundaries books so I can avoid being a victim, and I'll leave if people are rude. I won't talk politics no matter what! I'm announcing the old etiquette rule: in general company, never talk about politics, religion, or money.

What do you all think about the determination of many to argue politics in-person at social meetings?

I would broaden the question of debate being essential to democracy to say that freedom of speech is essential, one need not have a debate to make one's position known for a specific issue. Indeed, that's much of what we read online and in the print media; it isn't a debate but rather an essay or article written by somebody who wants to express what they think. Nothing wrong with a good debate if it's conducted in some semblance of a formal manner and respect for an opposing viewpoint, which if I may say so we don't get much of around here.

As for the secret ballot, yeah that's pretty important too, not sure it matters a whole lot which is more important though. And social occasions ought not to devolve into unsocial discourse, that would IMHO be extremely rude and discourteous to your host to ruin their party. As you say, stay away from subjects dealing with politics, religion, and money, which I suppose does limit the scope of conversation somewhat.

 

[Mac1958]

Alan Dershowitz complained bitterly in The Hill that his erstwhile friends on Martha's Vineyard have "shunned" him and refuse to invite him to their parties and dinners. This has hit the news cycle and a lot of op-eds have been written about it, most about how uncivil leftists now are. Dershowitz claims to be a major progressive, though I'd say that's in doubt: he's issue-centric. I remember when he was a great torture fan during the Bush Administration. Now he's written a couple of sort-of pro-Trump books, though really they are about the legal issues around impeachment and criminalizing political activity, fair enough. I mean to read both.

The problem is that Dershowitz asserts that open debate is central to democracy: essential to democracy. So my guess is that a lot of his "shunning" is because he's a REALLY bad dinner guest. Age 79, so he's got senior status and doesn't care what he says; and the best trial lawyer in the nation, I bet this guy never loses an argument, and that's seriously annoying. So when he comes to their parties, he argues all night about politics and wins ---- yeah, I'd stop inviting him, too. He's a pain.

But dozens of talkers have been writing op-eds and books all over claiming the same: that we HAVE to debate, have to talk (or yell) it all out, that this is essential to democracy. I don't agree --- I always thought it was the Secret Ballot that was central to democracy, and that's the exact opposite from quarreling it out. The secret ballot means you watch the news, you see what's going on, you vote and no one knows who you voted for unless you tell them, and that's how Trump won: we didn't tell.

Here we volunteer for debate. I have limits on it: I put the one-line obscene insult posters on ignore directly, and a lot of the others who are longer but just as nasty. Nevertheless, I'm here by choice when I am. But that family reunion in Boston this summer? Not really a choice, and I expect they will try to eat me up. I'm reading a lot of personal boundaries books so I can avoid being a victim, and I'll leave if people are rude. I won't talk politics no matter what! I'm announcing the old etiquette rule: in general company, never talk about politics, religion, or money.

What do you all think about the determination of many to argue politics in-person at social meetings?

Constructive debate (a rarer and rarer phenomenon) is essential to setting up the open and honest collaboration (an even rarer phenomenon) that is required for dynamic, long-lasting innovation and progress.

Screaming, attacking, lying and insulting is best left up to children and hardcore partisan ideologues -- neither of whom, not coincidentally, are likely to be involved in any open, honest collaboration, anyway.
.

 

[Picaro]

Actually Dershowitz is a 'paleo-liberal', the genuine kind, always has been, always will be. The Democratic Party is not a Liberal Party or a populist Party any more; that went away with the 'Super Delegate Rule' in the 1980's.

 

[Circe]

Actually Dershowitz is a 'paleo-liberal', the genuine kind, always has been, always will be. The Democratic Party is not a Liberal Party or a populist Party any more; that went away with the 'Super Delegate Rule' in the 1980's.

Right; I agree that the super delegates are a big problem. I didn't see it clearly till the Bernie Sanders contretemps -- but it's a way to let elites rule and populists have no chance.

 

[Circe]

I would broaden the question of debate being essential to democracy to say that freedom of speech is essential, one need not have a debate to make one's position known for a specific issue. Indeed, that's much of what we read online and in the print media; it isn't a debate but rather an essay or article written by somebody who wants to express what they think. Nothing wrong with a good debate if it's conducted in some semblance of a formal manner and respect for an opposing viewpoint, which if I may say so we don't get much of around here.

Yes, my husband expressed that as freedom of speech being essential to democracy --- but so is freedom of listening or not listening. Dangerous angry talk in live conversation is really a problem now in society -- look at all the bannings and shunnings and ejections and harassment the Left is doing to anyone they can identify on the right. It scares me a lot.

We need to be ABLE to say what we want without fear of going to jail, that's essential to democracy, but lately we aren't able to say what we think without fear of at least furious yelling and cursing at us in any company at all. It's not a problem here on the forum: we come here to do just that and can easily get rid of the one-line obscene insulters and concentrate on the more intelligent people. There are no real-world consequences to debate and we can leave at any moment.

None of that safety exists in the outside world now. People openly yell at shoppers; harass and picket somebody buying something to eat. Relationships in families and workplaces and social groups crash and burn constantly. I've seen it; I bet you all have. There is no respect for independent opinion. It has to be an opinion shared by the screaming yeller or they just keep on screaming.

It seems to me it's crucial to rebuff, stop this sort of attack in social groups: openly say that we aren't going to talk about politics and don't want anyone preaching at us on any hot-button issue. There seems to have been up till now a convention that people can say ANYTHING to us, that they are free to do that, to introduce any topic however controversial and demand a reply and demand that we listen to how awful they think we are. I think that has to stop.

 

[Picaro]

I do not think a debate is appropriate at a social gathering, but sometimes I obliquely touch on a political subject just to test a person's character and intelligence.

True, but in some cases that's why people like Dershowitz get invited to dinners, because everybody there will be political junkies of one stripe or another, and it's expected there will be fights.

 

[Picaro]

Alan Dershowitz complained bitterly in The Hill that his erstwhile friends on Martha's Vineyard have "shunned" him and refuse to invite him to their parties and dinners. This has hit the news cycle and a lot of op-eds have been written about it, most about how uncivil leftists now are. Dershowitz claims to be a major progressive, though I'd say that's in doubt: he's issue-centric. I remember when he was a great torture fan during the Bush Administration. Now he's written a couple of sort-of pro-Trump books, though really they are about the legal issues around impeachment and criminalizing political activity, fair enough. I mean to read both.

The problem is that Dershowitz asserts that open debate is central to democracy: essential to democracy. So my guess is that a lot of his "shunning" is because he's a REALLY bad dinner guest. Age 79, so he's got senior status and doesn't care what he says; and the best trial lawyer in the nation, I bet this guy never loses an argument, and that's seriously annoying. So when he comes to their parties, he argues all night about politics and wins ---- yeah, I'd stop inviting him, too. He's a pain.

But dozens of talkers have been writing op-eds and books all over claiming the same: that we HAVE to debate, have to talk (or yell) it all out, that this is essential to democracy. I don't agree --- I always thought it was the Secret Ballot that was central to democracy, and that's the exact opposite from quarreling it out. The secret ballot means you watch the news, you see what's going on, you vote and no one knows who you voted for unless you tell them, and that's how Trump won: we didn't tell.

Here we volunteer for debate. I have limits on it: I put the one-line obscene insult posters on ignore directly, and a lot of the others who are longer but just as nasty. Nevertheless, I'm here by choice when I am. But that family reunion in Boston this summer? Not really a choice, and I expect they will try to eat me up. I'm reading a lot of personal boundaries books so I can avoid being a victim, and I'll leave if people are rude. I won't talk politics no matter what! I'm announcing the old etiquette rule: in general company, never talk about politics, religion, or money.

What do you all think about the determination of many to argue politics in-person at social meetings?

Constructive debate (a rarer and rarer phenomenon) is essential to setting up the open and honest collaboration (an even rarer phenomenon) that is required for dynamic, long-lasting innovation and progress.

Screaming, attacking, lying and insulting is best left up to children and hardcore partisan ideologues -- neither of whom, not coincidentally, are likely to be involved in any open, honest collaboration, anyway.
.

Constructive debates go on all the time, they just take place on blogs and in the Comments sections of them now, not message boards, which have become nothing but spam targets.

 

[jwoodie]

I do not think a debate is appropriate at a social gathering, but sometimes I obliquely touch on a political subject just to test a person's character and intelligence.

True, but in some cases that's why people like Dershowitz get invited to dinners, because everybody there will be political junkies of one stripe or another, and it's expected there will be fights.

That used to be true in liberal circles 50 years ago, but today's "progressives" are only interested in associating with others who parrot the party line.

 

[task0778]

I would broaden the question of debate being essential to democracy to say that freedom of speech is essential, one need not have a debate to make one's position known for a specific issue. Indeed, that's much of what we read online and in the print media; it isn't a debate but rather an essay or article written by somebody who wants to express what they think. Nothing wrong with a good debate if it's conducted in some semblance of a formal manner and respect for an opposing viewpoint, which if I may say so we don't get much of around here.

Yes, my husband expressed that as freedom of speech being essential to democracy --- but so is freedom of listening or not listening. Dangerous angry talk in live conversation is really a problem now in society -- look at all the bannings and shunnings and ejections and harassment the Left is doing to anyone they can identify on the right. It scares me a lot.

We need to be ABLE to say what we want without fear of going to jail, that's essential to democracy, but lately we aren't able to say what we think without fear of at least furious yelling and cursing at us in any company at all. It's not a problem here on the forum: we come here to do just that and can easily get rid of the one-line obscene insulters and concentrate on the more intelligent people. There are no real-world consequences to debate and we can leave at any moment.

None of that safety exists in the outside world now. People openly yell at shoppers; harass and picket somebody buying something to eat. Relationships in families and workplaces and social groups crash and burn constantly. I've seen it; I bet you all have. There is no respect for independent opinion. It has to be an opinion shared by the screaming yeller or they just keep on screaming.

It seems to me it's crucial to rebuff, stop this sort of attack in social groups: openly say that we aren't going to talk about politics and don't want anyone preaching at us on any hot-button issue. There seems to have been up till now a convention that people can say ANYTHING to us, that they are free to do that, to introduce any topic however controversial and demand a reply and demand that we listen to how awful they think we are. I think that has to stop.

IMHO what has to stop is the intimidation from the ANTIFAs and others, mostly from the Left. If you attend a Repub event, from a town hall meeting to a debate to whatever else, you are risking being attacked. Especially in a swing state or district where the seat is up for grabs, these days protests and counter protests are becoming more prevalent with the possibility of turning violent. Who wants to get involved with anything like that?

Then there's the intimidation to our elected reps and gov't officials, harassment is over the top and I think going to get worse. Geez, a person ought to be allowed to think and support whatever policies and party they want without being abused for it. I wonder how many smart and talented people are avoiding public service for fear for their families.

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually Dershowitz is a 'paleo-liberal', the genuine kind, always has been, always will be. The Democratic Party is not a Liberal Party or a populist Party any more; that went away with the 'Super Delegate Rule' in the 1980's.

Dershowitz describes himself as a 'liberal' but apart from a tendency to embrace socialism, he also leans strongly toward libertarianism (little "L"). I think he does not like or appreciate our President all that much, and he probably votes Democrat more than any other way. But one thing he is is intellectually honest. And intellectual honesty is not allowed in modern American group think, herd mentality progressivism. Most especially when it points out how the President is being characterized, quoted, accused, or insulted unfairly which is why Dershowitz is now shunned and accused by the left.

I would LOVE to go one on one with Dershowitz in a formal debate on almost any topic. I suspect I might lose because the man is brilliant. But it would be a wonderful exercise focused on the actual specifics of an issue instead of the schoolyard taunts, characterizations, and insults that so many consider to be debate these days.

And yes, the Dershowitz kind of debate is essential if we are going to retain America as those who love it have known it. And it is becoming a lost art.