Where do you draw the line on what arguments are not worthy of debate?

[Zynx]

I have been told I actually have to engage in debates with people with ridiculous positions and prove item by item that what they say is ridiculous. I think we all have. For example, people who say Saddam was involved in 9/11 and that the 9/11 terrorists were majority Iraqi. Both of these items are incredibly false, so do I actually have to take the time to debate these people or can I just call "B.S." and go on to something else?

Obviously, being able to simply dismiss something you disagree with can be taken to the point that we shut down all discussion. I think it would be inappropriate for a person to just dismiss out of hand a statement such as "A 1% reduction in taxes will lead to 1.5% in GDP growth." because there is enough basis there to debate, even though it is more likely than not incorrect. In the political context, such a strategy would mean we would never have debate.

However, that is different than me asserting that the sun is powered by a spinning sphere of radioactive gumdrops that create a fusion reaction of super heated melted sugar that heats our planet and provides light for us all. No one has to sit down and debate me on that one, or at least I hope not.

So, the question I ask is this: Are all arguments worthy of debate? Do we really have to read the book of a creationist or a Holocaust denier and then debate them point by point, or can we simply dismiss certain arguments on their face? If we can, what are the criteria for doing so?

I bring this up because these message boards have seen many debates that I, and I'm sure others, feel should just be left to die on their own, but those who push those arguments demand a full, academic-level debate.

[JeffR]

1. My rule of thumb:

If it's being debated in GDP today, it's not worthy of debate.

[Zynx]

2. Lol. That works for me. :-)

[NC_Nurse]

3. I second that!

[Mojambo]

4. I think every issue deserves a full debate..

But that does not obligate me or anyone else to participate in that debate.

[Zynx]

6. I have a hard time justifying that, say, a Holocaust denier is entitled to a debate.

I know you said that you feel we are not obligated to debate them, but I have a hard time saying that a debate should exist in the first place.

[Mojambo]

14. It's one of those things that can be clunky and uncomfortable

But I don't think you can ever suspend debate, even on the most clear cut stuff, without losing something really important.

I believe unpopular and offensive ideas need to be protected as well, as distasteful as we all find it.

[Warpy]

5. I do this

"You mean you actually BOUGHT THAT???? BWAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!" and keep laughing as I walk away.

It's usually the last time they try to mouth platitudes from Pox News in my presence.

Never underestimate the power of ridicule when some propagandized halfwit is trying to look dead clever.

[Zynx]

7. When a Republican said total B.S. about Iran they said "Prove me wrong."

I said, "Fine, after you bring me cited sources to disprove that Ronald Reagan committed acts of pedophilia to try to prevent the Korean War."

They said, "That doesn't make sense."

I said, "Neither did what you said."

[Warpy]

8. Good one, will remember it.

[annabanana]

13. You might as well... anyone that far gone is going to take

MONTHS before you can have a realistic conversation with him..

[lightningandsnow]

9. One argument I hate:

on why something (sex work, drug use, whatever) is wrong:

It's illegal. Breaking the law is wrong. Therefore, it's wrong.

Uh, no. Have people ever heard of civil disobedience? And there have been plenty of discriminatory, unjust, and just plain dumb laws in the not-too-distant past. Think sodomy laws, laws against consensual BDSM, and not being able to have stores open on sunday.

[Echo In Light]

10. Tough call. A culture of Know-it-Allism, coupled with free floating anxiety/ignorance

Naturally most people prefer to see themselves as being 'right,' even if they're aeons away from the crux of the issue. All too human. Each brings their own perceptional baggage, so to speak, to any/every issue, so it can really depend more on the listener than the speaker...depending.

The hardest part is getting people to understand how many of their views are not exclusively their own, but were picked up here and there along the way, adopted or tossed aside, varying upon experience - and as sentient, emotional creatures, that aspect governs a great deal of our perceptions irrespective of objective analysis.

Another adjunct to the dilemma is how the corporate culture and its technology have created a "soundbite" mentality within the prevailing public mind ...given this, concision often wins out with a snarky, sarcastic swipe at the messenger who requires time to communicate that which he/she wishes to. The attention span is drastically diminished - a telltale sign of the "soundbite" culture - relegating any in depth communique as boring/long winded/irrelevant as it's not in keeping with how the public mind has been indoctrinated.

Someone can cite a great deal of very reliable, well sourced data on any given issue, yet, if what's being brought into question challenges a deeply seated cultural myth/preference, good luck getting very many to see the other side of the analysis.

[baby_mouse]

11. I usually say "What distinguishes your position from meaningless gibberish?"

The only way to deal with someone holding a stupid position who argues for it by trying to get you to defend yours is to acknowledge that thats what they're doing and refuse. *THEY* are the ones trying to get YOU to believe the crap. If its bullshit, just tell them it's bullshit. Don't lock step with them.

[readmoreoften]

12. Actually almost no arguments are worthy of debate these days.

That's the problem with our version of democracy. It doesn't mean equality between people no matter who they are. It means the equality of all people to blather on about their opinions: I think invading Iraq was right/I think it was wrong, Gay people should be treated equally/Gay people should be kept away from children, 9-11 was done by Iraqis/9-11 wasn't done by Iraqis.

There are clear answers if you take as axiomatic that all 'groups' of people are of equal value:

1) It was wrong to invade Iraq because it was done for the economic gain of certain people without concern for the welfare of others who are of equal value to them. This is not an opinion. This is the truth.

2) Gay people should be treated equally based on the fact that all peoples are of equal value. This is not an opinion. This is the truth.

3) It is impossible to say 'who did 9-11' but there is no evidence whatsoever that it was done by Iraqis. There is no more indication that Iraqis orchestrated 9-11 than the French or the Irish or Italians in South Philly or the Shriners. This is neither true or false but opinion and conjecture on all parts.

The sad this is that truths are worth fighting for. And this is what's been lost in our era of right-wing irrationalism and left-liberal deconstruction.

[Echo In Light]

16. Much of the dilemma you outline is a result of rightists taking over mainline media

[annabanana]

15. I usually respond with a bunch of questions.

I ask if they know if Iran is Shia or Sunni, I ask if they know what Shia & Sunni means, I ask if they know the name Muqtada al Sadr.. When they come up blank I tell them "Go do some reading and THEN I'll talk to you about it. I don't have time to catch you up"

[Zynx]

17. Sometimes it works, other times they get more obstinate.

[woofless]

18. How long does it take to decide someone is either deluded

or malicious? One is not required to engage with assholes.

[Breeze54]

19. Learn to pick your battles.

and then click ignore! :P

Are all arguments worthy of debate?

Not all arguments are worth pursuing but sometimes it's just fun! :P

Life is to short though. Learn to pick your battles. ;)

[Scout]

20. it's not the argument necessarily, but the argue-ee

"Argue with a fool, he does the same."

[Breeze54]

21. Not necessarily.... Sometimes you'll win.

;)

[otherlander]

22. Something with an insignificance quotient

of this or higher:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3082272&mesg_id=3082272

[Zynx]

23. That was pretty odd.