Let's keep arguing

[outdeep]

Great article on the need for debate.  Good advise for anyone involved in honest discussion.

-Dave

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20040614.shtml
Let's keep arguing
by John Leo
June 14, 2004

I gave an informal talk the other night and got a very odd reaction. I was speaking at a small dinner -- 16 people -- of a cultural group in New York. My topic was the sometimes demented culture of American universities. I talked about the repressive speech codes, stolen newspapers, canceled speakers, the de-funded Christian groups, the distortion of the curriculum by powerful diversity bureaucracies, and the indoctrination of students starting with freshman orientation and introductory writing courses.

Nothing in my remarks would have come as a surprise to readers of this column, and it turned out that maybe two-thirds of the people at the dinner strongly agreed with my talk. But it shocked one man -- a former university president of some note -- who denounced my comments as "the most intellectually dishonest speech I have ever heard." I think he meant to say that he disagreed. Or maybe he thought I was attacking his old university. Nobody knows what he thought because he just repeated his "intellectually dishonest" remark and left, closing the door quickly behind him.

This will stick in my mind as a good example of what has happened to debate in this country. Given a chance to speak his piece, the college president just got mad and got out. It never used to be this way. As many reporters reminded us last week, Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan fought sharply during the day but enjoyed having the occasional drink or two together after work. In the old days, William F. Buckley Jr. would hold public debates with all comers (I recall Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Steve Allen), then go out to a pleasant dinner with his opponent. Nowadays, Buckley or his adversary would probably be required to take umbrage, hurl some insult, then stomp out in a snit.

I caught the tail end of the civil-argument culture when Garry Wills and I started out many years ago as the original columnists in the National Catholic Reporter. We would frequently attack each other's ideas, but it never affected our friendship. Why should it?

In the current issue of The Atlantic, P.J. O'Rourke says that "Arguing, in the sense of attempting to convince others, seems to have gone out of fashion with everyone." O'Rourke doesn't pay much attention, he says, to talk radio, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Al Franken or Michael Moore because they just shout things at partisan audiences that already agree with their chosen shouter. Technology reinforces the decline of serious argument -- now we can all go to a TV channel, a radio show, or a Web site that will protect us from those aliens across the moat who disagree with us.

It's true that we have more semistructured "Crossfire"-style debates than ever before. But much of this is rigidly preprogrammed sniping (I was once chastised by a TV producer for not interrupting other speakers more. What a failure!) Even when the sniping is downplayed, TV demands sharp sound bites, which pushes all talking heads toward more vehemence and simplemindedness. Instant certainty becomes mandatory, a delivery style many talking heads start to regret before they're even out of the studio. Where is the real debate?

In my remarks at the dinner, I talked about the birth of a "no debate" style on many campuses. When sensitivity and nonjudgmentalism are the dominant virtues, raising arguments can be perilous; you never know what unauthorized campus opinion will turn out to be a sensitivity violation. Better to keep your head down. This is particularly true now that some speech codes explicitly say that challenging another student's beliefs is forbidden.

This is yet another perverse campus trend. Arguing is crucial to education. It's a kind of intellectual roughhouse that lets students try out new ideas. E.J. Dionne Jr., the Washington Post columnist, sometimes tells his class at Georgetown that he intends to support the argument of whichever group in the class is in the minority. He does this because he wants his students to argue as passionately as possible without fear of intimidation by a dominant group.

In his book "The Revolt of the Elites," the late Christopher Lasch wrote that only in the course of argument do "we come to understand what we know and what we still need to learn ... we come to know our own minds only by explaining ourselves to others." If we wish to be engaged in serious argument, Lasch explained, we must enter into another person's mental universe and put our own ideas at risk.

Exactly. When a friend launches an argument and your rebuttal starts to sound tinny to your own ears, it shouldn't be that hard to figure out that something's wrong -- usually that you don't really agree with the words coming out of your own mouth. Arguing can rescue us from our own half-formed opinions.

[M2]

Great article on the need for debate.  Good advise for anyone involved in honest discussion.

-Dave

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20040614.shtml
Let's keep arguing
by John Leo
...

Yeah!  Now you're talking.  An excellent article.  I will comment further later, but will make one comment now:  I honestly believe that so many do not know how to "listen".  People are pre-occupied with 'their' side of the story and are not willing for honest debate and inquiry.

Lord bless,
Marcia

[Joseph Reisinger]

loved the article dave.  I can't agree enough that we need to let our arguments be heard... not just to try to convince others, but so that we may be struck by their sound to our own ears.
hastily and half-formed opinions fill our minds all the time.  Far better to weed them out through good-natured banter so that the better whole-hearted convictions remain.
joseph

[al Hartman]

Thanks Dave, & thanks Marcia & Joseph.


     I really hope that article gets a lot of exposure.


     "Argument" is one of those words that I have had to lay before the Lord and be personally healed of a knee-jerk reaction...

     The home into which I was born, and in which I lived until I was 19, was an atmosphere of continual arguing during all waking hours.  But it was not the kind of argument described in the article that this thread began with.  The only goal of the arguing I grew up with was to win.  Being truly right or wrong was incidental-- Being thought to be, or, better yet, "proved" to be "right" was everything, regardless of what was true.

     As the author John Leo specifies, and the posters before me have clearly agreed, the desirable argument is for the sake of learning.  Expanding upon that, the Christian's purpose in debate is threefold:  

[1.]  That Christ be exalted,
[2.]  That the people of God, debaters and listeners, be blessed, and
[3.]  That the debater himself become either more certain or corrected in his contentions.  Boiling all that down:  

     We discuss with conviction, but with open hearts and minds, trusting in and calling upon our Lord to moderate our conversation, with the ends in view that God be pleased and His people (church, body, bride) be edified.

     Such an attitude would seem to allow for no self-consideration or personal motive in our speech and conduct.  By God's grace, may it be so of us...

al

[Peacefulg]

Nice article, guess this means that we cannot have Springer like "chats" on this board or with others?   J-E-R-R-Y, J-E-R-R-Y!!!  

On a serious note, this is lack of listening is why Churches are so divided.  It amazes me how most will say yes they believe the person(s) they are debating with are saved, but will walk away from them in the end and more than likely have nothing else to do with them.  Look forward to them meeting back up in Glory!

Peace Out!
G

[sfortescue]

I like the way the columnist's expression "sometimes demented culture" so aptly describes the manipulation of public opinion by dishonest means.  In other words, the idea of power prevailing over truth is demonic.

I've learned a lot from the various arguments that have arisen on this BB.  It's good to hear what various people have to say about things.

I know that Al doesn't like conflict.  My parents taught me the "live and let live" philosophy.  If Tom and Verne are having an argument, that's their business, not mine since they are responsible adults and know what they are doing.  Of course, if someone is maliciously causing harm, that's a different story.

[lenore]

Thank you Dave for being the article to the attention:

I believe 'ARGUING' has a negative reaction, many of us associate 'ARGUING' with verbal fights, abusiveness, and  attempted to control their viewpoints.

'DEBATES'  type of arguing, where one party voices a opinion, while the other waits , listens, then able to form a rebuttal to the issue that is being debated.

DEBATES ARE CLEANSING, it clears the air, it allows each side  to voice, listening, watch, without the negative aspects of arguing. Debates I agree can be very positives.

Debates are one way to learn different viewpoints, different standards, different ways of thinking, different cultures ideas.

Thank you Dave for this article.

Lenore

[al Hartman]

I've learned a lot from the various arguments that have arisen on this BB.  It's good to hear what various people have to say about things.

I know that Al doesn't like conflict.  My parents taught me the "live and let live" philosophy.  If Tom and Verne are having an argument, that's their business, not mine since they are responsible adults and know what they are doing.  Of course, if someone is maliciously causing harm, that's a different story.

Stephen,

     One of the things that participation in this BB keeps bringing home to me is that there is warfare (SERIOUS conflict) raging in the heavens over the testimony to Jesus and the souls of men.  I may not "like" conflict, but I dare not ignore it.  

     It is not such conflict as the Carty/Maddux debates that I so dislike.  I learn from them, but am not equipped to take part in them.  The conflicts I despise are those in which one or more parties rule out reason or courtesy-- the arguments in which one may suspect, if not be certain, that the very warfare mentioned above is being manifested by parties seemingly intent upon maliciousness.

     My "feelings" about conflict can be summed up in a scene from Fiddler On the Roof:  The men of the little Jewish community in Czarist Russia are questioning their rabbi about spiritual matters, and one asks, "Rabbi, is there a blessing for the Tsar (Czar)?"
     The rabbi pauses to consider, then says, "May God bless and keep the Tsar...  far away from us!"
     That's how I feel about conflict:  It is inevitable, but I'd rather it take place far from me...  

     But that stems from my upbringing, mentioned in my previous post on this thread.  I do pray God will teach me His ways in being a faithful defender of the gospel of Jesus Christ, whatever the cost.

al

[Joe Sperling]

Having been diagnosed with schizophrenia at an early age, I have had many lively arguments with myself for some time now.  The doctor never diagnosed that. Yes he did--so please keep out of this. I have had  a wide variety of arguments about politics and even religion. Don't listen to him he doesn't know anything about politics or religion. I do too, you just never listen to me. I listen to you but you are a complete idiot. Why don't you just shut up so I can continue this post in peace. No, you shut up, and let me post the rest of this.
Oh---forget it. I give up. So do I.

[Joseph Reisinger]

LOL!

[outdeep]

What I want to know, Joe, is which one of you got the 24 positive attitudes and which one got the negative?

[Joe Sperling]

I gave him the 1 negative vote and  gave myself the 24 positive votes. But how could you when I gave you the 1 negative vote and gave myself the 24 positive? No you didn't. Yes I did.  Yes you didn't. No, you did. Now I'm really confused. So am I.

[al Hartman]

      After e-mailing copies of John Leo's article, "Let's Keep Arguing" to a number of people, I have received some interesting responses.  Here are a few of them:

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
There's a new term in our language...politically correct, and too many are
afraid to say what they mean for fear of offending someone.  My opinion, is
simply that, my own.  I will not push it off on someone else and expect them
to agree, but neither will I stifle myself if I feel strongly about
something.  Hearing other peoples' opinions is how I learn.  And I prefer
being wrong to being ignorant.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I would add that what is critical to "arguing" efforts is not necessarily talking but listening.  I have learned far more listening than I have talking.  The only things I've realized while talking is that, as the Christopher Lasch quote below explains, I didn't really know as much as I thought I did.

Whether in our personal or professional lives, there's nothing better than direct, honest communication.  It helps with everything.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
This is great.  I've always enjoyed John Leo's articles
in US News, although they disturb me -- he points out such scary things
about our press and society.  Reminds me of Nazi Germany.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I read Leo regularly and often disagree sharply, but still I listen to his views. I hope that says something about his wish for more debate and fewer walk-outs. Actually, I found long ago that I learned nothing new while hearing myself.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I most certainly agree with the concluding three points that you give at the end of your email.  (The same three points made in my post on this thread, June 15th-- al)  Isn't it wonderful to be able to truly mean Gal. 2:20. I really think Rom.12:1,2 for me needs to go right after Gal. 2:20. Thank the Lord that He is teaching us through His word that He is to be exalted, the other one listening blessed, and we, as His, to know and understand what we are saying through giving the word or the principles of the word. I am so grateful for His teacher the Holy Spirit.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Joes,

     Maybe you should discuss with one another the possibility of group counselling...

al

[lenore]

 :)July 6th: 12:21 am:

Political Correctness:

Freedom of Speech:

Rights vs Rights:

Protections vs loss of freedoms:

These are two sides of arguments:

Political correctness vs the freedoms of speech.
Human rights vs loss of freedoms for others.

Sometimes I think getting ones rights is the right to trample over someone else 's rights.

If it frees right to you then there nothing wrong with it, but even if it is an offense to others.

These are the arguments of society.
Sometime you cant think, do , act, say or even think anything without considering how it might not look or sound too good to other people. Yet in turn , we are to accept what other people think, do , say even if it doesnt feel too good to us.

No wonder this society is so confusing.

Rules changes daily. What may be okay today, will not be okay tomorrow.

Example: In Canada: The rights of the homosexuals rights over the rights to read the Bible:(?)

When does political correctness step over the line to point where it no longer politically correct.(?)

Think about that one?