CDZ Is Debate Essential to Democracy?

[candycorn]

As much as people criticize internet discussions, I personally prefer the debates I have online to verbal discussion I have in real life. The removal of direct personal interaction improves the experience immensely. Think about it, we do our best work when we isolate ourselves from the world and focus entirely on the issue at hand without all the distractions and emotions involved in most human interactions.

We should listen to what others say whether we actually care how they feel or not because the best ideas will always flourish in a fair exchange of speech. Civility is not based on assumption of middle ground, it's about the fair exchange of ideas, removing emotions from the equation, and maintaining sportsmanship. Compassionate people follow rules of fair play and decency. They do what is right even when it may not be to their own advantage.

Good point. What is most bothersome to me isn't when someone disagrees with me; it's when the person you're engaging is being intellectually dishonest and you have to re-invent the wheel in every conversation. For example, I don't think any reasonable adult will disagree with the statement that Donald Trump is a liar. Yet there are those here who will argue he is not.

 

[Circe]

You would have problems with questions like" What are the three branches of the Federal government', or similar questions? How is that sort of knowledge 'biased'? And, as I've said in other posts, the tests could be divided between local, state, and Federal tests; some people actually don't vote in all of them or want to, and wouldn't need to take some Big Giant Opus Exam all at one time or anything.

I entirely agree with you --- SOME sort of test that discriminates between the smart and the terminally stupid. An information/education test could be administered at time of registrations, which should also test for motivation and general put-togetheredness by people having to go to the local voter registration office, as always used to be the case. Simple questions about who are current high officials, processes and boundaries of the country.

I have also for many years wished for a means test again, as democracy had from it's very earliest days in Greece and France later --- only stakeholders could vote. Mobs of felons, homeless, illegals, no, not eligible. I'd like to see a means test based on both income and property. What's going on now is nuts, the worst of the worst voting on taking everything from anyone who has anything. This is no way to keep a prosperous nation.

 

[Circe]

We need to focus our efforts on voter IDs and document the person's unique voter ID as well as a fingerprint and photo taken at registration to prevent illegal aliens from voting.

Right, it's time and past time for a national identity card, IMO. DNA, holograph chipping, fingerprint, impossible to forge. It would be useful in so many ways, not only voting. Get some order in this chaos, stop the voter fraud going on all over with illegals and all the Chicago-style voting of dead people.

I don't agree with you, however, about not wanting any economic group discriminated against for voting. It's only very recently (the Dems, of course) that anyone thought bums and illegals and felons should vote. I think if people are down and out they should do better before they can vote. They are not stakeholders in the society: they are parasites, particularly if they are accepting welfare.

 

[Foxfyre]

As much as people criticize internet discussions, I personally prefer the debates I have online to verbal discussion I have in real life. The removal of direct personal interaction improves the experience immensely. Think about it, we do our best work when we isolate ourselves from the world and focus entirely on the issue at hand without all the distractions and emotions involved in most human interactions.

We should listen to what others say whether we actually care how they feel or not because the best ideas will always flourish in a fair exchange of speech. Civility is not based on assumption of middle ground, it's about the fair exchange of ideas, removing emotions from the equation, and maintaining sportsmanship. Compassionate people follow rules of fair play and decency. They do what is right even when it may not be to their own advantage.

There is very real truth in this. When it is something (the rhetorical) you feels strongly about, It is too easy for the initial response to those who disagree with you to be that of defensiveness, resentment, even anger. And when that happens with friends, family, colleagues, it can add a toxic element to the exchange that will not end well.

And maybe most, if not all of us, know at least one person who will actually attack the 'heretic' as he/she sees it and may even cut off a relationship purely because the other person is not properly 'orthodox' in his/her opinions or point of view. And when that kind of intolerance becomes organized effort to punish somebody for no other reason than they express a 'heretical' view, it becomes dangerous for our democratic representative republic.

The same reaction to differences of opinion happen here at DP or other message boards and in the national conversations happening at town halls, in the media, etc. but the lack of in person relationship allows us to say what we think and how we see it without the ramifications of alienating or possibly creating a toxic element in those real life relationships. I always loved formal debate for the reason that any form of non sequitur or ad hominem was removed from the process. Or it was if the debater wanted to score any points.

Even in a forum like USMB, it is the fairly rare person who can actually participate in give and take and exchange of ideas without indicating contempt, scorn, anger, making accusations, insulting etc. the person they disagree with. And too many will intentionally attempt to derail or change any discussion they do not wish to happen.

And that is unfortunate. And when taken to extremes, that too is dangerous to our democratic representative republic.