Metadebate: Is tact necessary, or helpful, in a debate?

Great Debates
1

Is tact necessary, or helpful, in a debate?

Opinions can be harsh
opinions can be rude
Do you muddy the waters
with your bad attitude?

I propose that when entering a debate, one can have one of two objects.
One is to ‘win’ the debate. (See this thread for a discussion of what that means.) The other is to discuss the topic, with the object of arriving at a more informed opinion, whether or not you change your mind.

‘Winning’ the debate (for the purposes of this discussion) is feeling that you convinced someone else that you were correct all along, or that no one has countered your arguments. Not to say that you went into it with your mind completely closed, but maybe only a tiny crack ajar. Tactics to achieve this goal include obfuscation, nitpicking, not answering compelling arguments against you, hijacking the discussion, etc. etc. etc.

Discussing the topic can also include all of these things, though usually unintentionally.

For now, let’s focus on the way that opinions are expressed. Often, when the object is to win, one expresses their opinions with bravado, arrogance, self-confidence, condescension, unfeelingness or even self-righteousness. When the object is to discuss, one usually tries to avoid coming across this way, as it invites responses in kind, and those one is conversing with get the impression that one is more interested in winning than discussing.

The question is whether there are some opinions that simply cannot be expressed in a tactful way; that there is something about an idea that makes it more ‘true’, more compelling, clearer, or just more accurate when stated in a way that some would find less than tactful?

For example, personal experience has a certain home in the foundations of beliefs and opinions. In either kind of debate, expressing that personal source of opinions is appropriate, or possibly even necessary. But describing the experiences one has (and especially how one reacted to them) can come across as less than tactful.

Does the need to express an opinion trump the need for tact? Do the interests of having a discussion (as opposed to ‘winning’) mean that one must use extra care to avoid giving offense?

2

Tact is another technique that can be deployed or not depending upon the tactical situation. If one is attempting to actually convince ones opponent, then tact can be quite useful. If one is merely wanting hooting idiots who already agree with you to shout down an opponent, then tact gets in the way. Likewise, if the only thing one wishes to do is irrationally vent and pretend to moral outrage, then tact would be at cross-purposes to a goal.

Tact also presumes that either ones audience or ones opponent (depending upon whom one really targets) is sufficiently non-moronic to get the concept that screaming louder is not the same thing as having better evidence. In general, if the target audience is prone to chanting in streets, presume they haven’t the brains for tact to be effective.

3

Personally, I find that the majority of rude or tactless opinions usually do not have a sound rationale behind them; in general, I much less likley to be swayed by arguments expressed in tones of “bravado, arrogance, self-confidence, condescension, unfeelingness or even self-righteousness”.

They can, however, be very entertaining to read.

Never, at least in this forum. An argument presented coherently and logically should stand on its own and should not require any other enhancements to convince readers.

4

IMO, there’s nothing wrong with “bravado, arrogance, self-confidence, condescension, unfeelingness or even self-righteousness” in a debate, as long as accuracy, honesty and logical consistency are present in the argument. I really don’t care if I’m talked down to or met with smarmy arrogance (I can certainly answer in kind, with an added dose of priggish judgementalism to boot), as long as:[ul][li]my opponent understands and represents his own argument, my argument, and any referenced material accurately,[]my opponent responds to counterpoints with direct argument rather than avoiding or misrepresenting them, or creating strawmen, and []my opponent applies the same logic to arguments and counterarguments, and acknowledges when or if his/her argument shifts.[/ul][/li]Tact, of course, should be the default concern when engaging in civilized discourse, but blunt directness and even sharp rebuke have their place as well.

5

To little tact can make it impossible to truely debate usefully.
If you are so tactless as to cause the other debater to become irrationally angry, then they will no longer be able to debate sensibly with you. You will win the debate by default without ever openly defeating your ‘oponents’ salient points. Thus this will be a hollow victory of egos and not a removal of ignorance.
I believe myself that any debating with the goal of “winning” is in itself foolishness, if you consider the goal to win the debate then you have started the debate from the position that you own ideas cannot be wrong, such a position is detremental to the debating process.
Cheers, Bippy

6

Well put, Bippy :slight_smile:

I read Great Debates to see people’s viewpoints on issues and compare them with my own, not to keep score.

Fighting ignorance is a team concept!

7

Agreed, Guys.

But no more pile-ons as to the nature of appropriate conversations, please.

Stay on target: Is tact necessary? Are there times when ignoring tact is necessary?

Xeno, Can you give an example of when ‘blunt directness and even sharp rebuke’ are more appropriate/effective than a tactful expression of the same points?

8

Well, it depends on what effect you’re going for. If you’re expressing disapproval over something you find offensive on ethical or moral grounds (say, a blatantly racist remark for example), a sharp rebuke may be more effective at conveying the degree to which you’ve been offended than would a tactful expression of dismay. If you’ve just spent 10 iterations exchanging argument with an opponent who has consistently ignored your major points in order to repeat arguments for which you’ve presented refutation, then a bluntly direct comment regarding the tactics you’ve perceived might be most effective either at steering the discussion toward a mutually productive direction or at least concluding your engagement with the recalcitrant opponent.

On the other hand, if you vehemently disagree with a particular argument on any philosophical basis, or if a particular point needs clarification in order for one or the other party to understand, then a tactful expression of points is probably most likely to elicit a useful exchange of thought.

Really, I’m not suggesting that anyone ignore diplomacy. I suggest rather that, although as Banger pointed out fighting ignorance is a team effort, it requires accuracy much more than it requires tact. (And if we were all tactful all the time, we’d lose most of the humor in the forum, I think.) (“Comedy is not pretty.” ~ S. Martin)

I can see, though, why someone who’s more concerned with winning a debate rather than discussing a topic might be tempted to augment obfuscatory rhetoric with tactless comments. It’s possible to be dead wrong and still “win” a debate while remaining honest and polite; it’s just not very likely against a reasonably skilled opponent. When your argument runs counter to reality, all you have are rhetorical tricks and ‘verbal’ abuse to fall back on as means of persuasion.

9

No, tact is not necessary in a debate, though it can be helpful. Much depends upon teh context of the discussion. For myslef, honesty and precision are far more important that tact or flattery. If someone has a good enough idea, then that idea will survive hard scrutiny. If not, then let it fall as hard as it may.

THere are exceptions, of course. I try to reserve my most tactless moments for debates about purely intellectual concerns with litle or no “real world” emotional content. In discussing wars, politics, or sports I try to temper things a bit, since those conversations can infalme passions beyond reason even with a gentle touch of rhetoric.

When it comes right down to it, though, I think of this forum as a proving ground for ideas, not an exercise in team building.

10

Would it be fair to say, then, that you feel tactlessness is weapon best used mainly against opponents not interested in discussion, or who make particularly ignorant remarks?

11

Gah!. :smack: last comment to Xeno.

12

No, because that lets them think that you’re the one without a real argument, and they leave the discussion as ignorant as before but with more self-righteousness.

I see no reason for first use of tactlessness, although it can be an appropriate response to same if targeted precisely.

13

Some lack of tact can be useful to highlight a point or make humour, and other times lack of tact is completely accidental.

“I don’t smoke myself, and when driving a gay friend of mine home he lit up, so I through the fag out of my car”

Could be accidental, or could be a (admittedly silly) joke. Both are not distructive of the discussion provided all involved understand what is being said and attempting to be said. Also when honestly saying your oppinion it can be hard to also be tactful, this is usually resolved by stating clearly that what you say is mearly your opinion, and appologising before hand before stating it, such as …
“I believe, and I hope Polycarp won’t take any offense from this that Poly is an essentially good human being, and that he choses to be a Christian in a way that reflects his personal goodness. I believe Christianity strengthens Poly’s goodness, but I do not believe that Christianity can be the cause of his goodness. Dispite Polycarp claims that it is.”

Cheers, Bippy

14

Whew! I’m glad that’s only a hypothetical! I can’t imagine you’d even think of anything so tactless!!

How about: “I love Bippy. Bippy’s made me laugh countless times. But Bippy can’t spell worth a damn. Sorry. Just my opinion.”
Seriously, though, it seems to me that neither of your examples is actually tactless in the sense we’re driving at here. In the first case, you’ve used possibly questionable language, while in the second you’ve gone out of your way to be respectful.

I’m not claiming this is the dictionary definition, but by tactlessness here, I think we should focus on not just violations of the decorum of a debutante ball, such as voicing a difference of opinions, but of voicing those opinions in a way that is intended to raise the ire or to put the emphasis on the first part of ‘brutally honest.’

For example: “I don’t care what Poly believes, it’s not logically plausible that being Christian is what makes Poly the person Poly is. IMO.”

IMO, little is gained by the previous statement as compared with the following slight rephrasing (and respelling) of yours:

“I believe that Poly is an essentially good human being, and that he chooses to be a Christian in a way that reflects his personal goodness. I believe Christianity strengthens Poly’s goodness, but I do not believe that Christianity can logically be the cause of his goodness. Despite Polycarp’s claims that it is.”

Neither hides the truth (in this case little more than the speaker’s opinion) but the one makes a point of confrontation, while the other emphasizes commonality.

15

nogginhead: I feel tactlessness doesn’t necessarily have to be a deliberate decision (as in “a weapon” to be used against selected opponents). It’s a contextual thing. Sometimes tact requires more effort than a situation really demands, and sometimes the ebb and flow of a discussion doesn’t really require attention to sensitivities.

I do agree, though that deliberate rudeness is rarely the right response, except as a quid pro quo; and even then, it’s probably not the most effective tack (as Elvis points out, it leaves the respondent open to charges of ad hominem or evasion). Those who can respond to ugliness or dishonesty with grace are to be admired, even though they are difficult for some of us to emulate.

-xeno (not graceful)

16

Soem might argue that if we don’t have the time or energy to be tactful, we ought to keep our mouths shut.

But you do raise the interesting point that tact, or at least giving offense, is in the ear of the listener… one can in all good faith, manage to seem quite tactless without meaning to. How does this affect a discussion?

Well put, brother. -(not graceful) Nog.

17

I think there’s a semantic discussion to be made here.

If you define “winning” as simply beating your opponent, either changing his mind or making him give up the argument entirely, then basically anything is fair game. Given that on the Big Issues, people generally don’t change their minds anyway, the only way to win a debate is to exhaust your opponent and make him withdraw. In this scenario, insult and invective can be very useful.

But if you define “winning” as convincing an impartial, non-participating audience of the rightness of your argument, then tact and decorum are very important. The more level-headed you are, and the more impersonal and fact-based your position, the more likely you’ll be to secure the audience’s sympathy. The debater who resorts to venom and personal attack will be perceived as weak in this situation.

Whenever I participate in Great Debates, I try (not always with success) to keep this unseen, unheard viewership in mind. I know full well I’m not going to convince a Creationist of the fact of Evolution, or whatever, no matter how long the argument goes. But at the same time, I know that if I start calling my opponent names and using profanity, the lurking observers will begin to wonder if I actually have a point, and my argument collapses.

That, for me, is the difference between GD and the Pit. In GD, parties A and B debate a point for the benefit of undecided party C. In the Pit, on the other hand, A and B go after each other and get their own rocks off without regard for what C thinks. In the latter case, tact is irrelevant. In the former, it’s everything.

18

Woops, that first line was supposed to say “semantic distinction.”

19

I’ll go of and criy now :wink:

Serriously, sorry about spelling my brain didn’t come with a spell checker, and on these unix boxes I use, spell checking is a little primative.

20

That’s a great perspective on the purpose of GD: it’s all for the lurkers. I also like that if everyone could be convinced to keep this in mind, it would have the effect of keeping personal petty feelings out of the discussion of ideas. And maybe keep the me-too quotient down as well.

I disagree about the Pit, though. I’ve had lots of (well, OK, several) [OK, OK, two] really good discusions in the pit… the overwhelming weight of humanity not really wanting to curse and hurt, or just plain underlying good will, can make yelling matches turn into plain ild discussions, though with less self-censorship.