Invisible Slot Machine
I think debate is extremely interesting. Not participating in them or watching them, though I'm sure that can be the case too. I think the concept itself is intriguing. A lot of "sensible" thinkers think that open and free debate is a necessary component of a functional democracy or even a better world. I would suspect this comes from their upbringing, surroundings (in particular academically) or particular world view.
The thing is I don't think encouraging dissent and disagreement is necessarily the same things as "debate".
If you approach a debate sincerely, and your opposite does not, then its a fools game. Treating all your opponents views with equal respect and vigor is a trap if they make use of the fact that they know you'll do that.They can burn your time and your energy forcing you to debunk junk science after nonsense "fact". The fact that they know how to debate means they won't fall into quickly and easily dismiss-able fallacies or rhetorical tricks, so you will have to engage fully to dispute their claims.
People who strongly believe they are right are decently likely to learn to become good at debating. Frequently, debating is presented as a skill you can develop impartially. You get assigned a stance and then you must utilize research and logical rhetorical skill to defend that stance.
However, as soon as you leave the sterilized academic world of debate, you now need to assign your own stances. By design, debate research is about shoring up the stance you ended up with rather than accepting all evidence on its face. Part of me struggles to believe anyone has had their views meaningfully changed by a debate. Being good at defending your view doesn't actually make you "right."
Look at abortion or gun control. There isn’t a clear, fundamental right or wrong that everyone agrees on. Personally, I feel like abortion should be allowed. Not allowing it is cruel and strange. It forces someone to take a specific, massive action. And yet, I'm opposed to gun ownership. You could argue that's also forcing someone to take a specific action. On its face, it's pretty easy to call out this inconsistency.
I suppose the difference for me is the consequence. Sure, there are statistics that back my views. Guns lead to more deaths and more danger overall. But if I'm being honest, that data is likely not the reason I hold those views. I didn't look at a spreadsheet first. I think I just want less harm.
And this is the part I can't get past. I don't think I can understand people who don't prioritise harm reduction.I understand it in an intellectual sense, I suppose. If you believe that some harm is inevitable, its easy to follow that it makes sense to "optimize" it. Harm in exchange for progress is better than the default harm. But that argument easily leads to behavior of increasing harm.
You can see it in our society today.This blatant lack of care for human suffering baffles me. Because if you didn't happen to be born as you, but instead as the child who is mining cobalt, or the child dying of malaria, or just starving... would you not want to be given an equal chance of living a life with less suffering?
Where we end up? How much we are suffering by default?
It’s all just a spin on the cosmic slot machine.
Where we are and our situation is mostly a result of the specific conditions of our birth. It’s so easy to become a good debater and defend your views from a clean room. It’s much harder to look at a child suffering and admit you just happened to win the lottery.