Dialectic and Debate

pvt6zh395dqbrj

My hero, Michael Scofield, never had to debate issues to achieve his greatness.

What I am asking is - why is political debate the best method of discussion? Why does it make more sense for our politicians to debate issues rather than engage in a form of dialectic on them?

dashboard_hula

Well, I had to look up dialectic first - thanks for the new word

Re: your question "why is political debate the best method of discussion? Why does it make more sense for our politicians to debate issues rather than engage in a form of dialectic on them?"

Dialectic - "Dialectic is based on a dialogue between two or more people who may hold differing views, yet wish to seek the truth of the matter through the exchange of their viewpoints while applying reason."

Debate - "in which both sides are committed to their viewpoint and only wish to win the debate by persuading or proving themselves right (or the other side wrong) – and thus a jury or judge is often needed to decide the matter." (Wikipedia)

I'd imagine that the reason why politicians engage in debate more than dialectic is that politicians already have chosen positions on whatever issue is in question. They are a member of a party, or hold to a chosen ideology, and they're appealing to their own supporters and undecideds to elect them or support them. I don't think you're going to find very many politicians who'll go "Do you know what? My opposition is right...I don't know where I went wrong!" So the method of choice is debate - defend their viewpoint, attack the opposition, and try and persuade the electorate around to their way of thinking.

oscarBravo

We've allowed adversarial politics to develop to the point where the greatest embarrassment a politician could conceivably suffer is to admit to ever having been wrong. I'd love to see that change - it's one reason I would never contemplate a career in politics (I have been known to be wrong, and to admit it) - but I'm not optimistic.

RDM_83 again

Well you could argue that its not just politics, our Justice system is also based on the adversarial model, I won't comment on if there's a better system out there but one could consider that natural justice is often absent from our system.

Gary L

dashboard_hula wrote: »

Dialectic - "Dialectic is based on a dialogue between two or more people who may hold differing views, yet wish to seek the truth of the matter through the exchange of their viewpoints while applying reason."

Debate - "in which both sides are committed to their viewpoint and only wish to win the debate by persuading or proving themselves right (or the other side wrong) – and thus a jury or judge is often needed to decide the matter." (Wikipedia)

Yup this wraps it right up I think. Not quite enough self criticism/skepticism in politics or society generally for dialectic discussion. Some day.

Madd Finn

Let's summarise the differences.

Dialectic: a discussion in which two adversaries each try to convince the other.

Debate: a discussion in which two adversaries each try to convince an audience.

Of course in a democracy debate is the more effective. Do you want to convince one person with an argument or a room full? Or better still, an entire TV audience?

Sadly this often means that a trashy but humourous and articulate charlatan can gain more points than an earnest studious type with a forensic grasp of his subject.

George Galloway is a classic debater demagogue. His one-liners are legendary but they do nothing to advance the rectitude of his arguments.

eg Describing Christopher Hitchens' mutation from Trotskyist to Iraq-war supporting Neocon he said "What you are witnessing is something unique in natural history. The first ever metamorphosis from a butterfly back to a slug!"

Or "Being accused of lacking moral fibre by that guy is like being asked to sit up straight by the Hunchback of Notre Dame"

It'll get an audience on your side but it does nothing to advance your argument. Mind you, in a previous century, Daniel O'Connell was pretty good at that sort of stuff too.

Denerick

Dialectic belongs in academic circles. Democracy appeals to the masses; parties appeal to specific segments of the masses; hence the attempt to build a uniform 'public opinion' is doomed to failure. Unless mankind becomes flawless and agree's upon all issues. This is what Big Brother attempted to do in '1984'. See where I'm going with this...