The value of arguing with those you disagree with

[Eilonnwy]

Rachel Maddow: Angle not so sharp outside media bubble

Sharon Angle is the Republican candidate for senate in Nevada. It's been a Republican goal to remove Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader in the senate, from his seat. Their first prospective candidate made unfortunate comments about taking chickens to a doctor for health care. So Sharon Angle was elected in the primary and she has made some problematic statements, but she kept insulating herself within conservative media. Finally she accepted an interview with a liberal host.

There are a couple things I want to address about this video. First, the clips of the first interview Angle has participated in with a host that doesn't agree with her are fascinating. Especially her views on Separation of Church and State and abortion. It's especially mind boggling when she says Roe v Wade was government involvement. Wut?

However, I love Rachel Maddow's larger points about arguing outside your bubble, about having discussions with people whom you disagree. I definitely agree that it's valuable to argue with opponents to sharpen your own arguing abilities and refine your ideologies to be consistent and sound. (And yes, it's fun) This is sound advice not only politically, but philosophically in arguments with religion. Hence, this forum encourages theists to join and take part in discussions.

I definitely feel my own ability to argue, and my own beliefs and convictions with regard to atheism have strengthened from arguing here and in other places. I've been an atheist since I was 16, but often times when I was challenged I had trouble responding. I knew the arguments put forth were weak and unconvincing, but I couldn't pinpoint why, or convey accurately my argument against them. Now, I feel my thoughts and arguments against religion are stronger and more organized. I don't think I'm perfect at arguing, but I am constantly learning how to argue, what to argue about, discarding bad arguments and ideas, and learning new arguments. I have radically changed certain ideologies and convictions that I held, which were contradictory, in my desire to hear and engage in arguments.

Arguing is such an important part of our discourse, and I agree with Rachel, I wish she got the chance more often to host conservative guests. I think Rachel is very well composed, gives a fair hearing, and is always respectful to her opponent, while masterfully hammering on their arguments.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I do not usually argue with people who disagree with me. In my circle, arguing usually involves casting aspersions on a person's intellect ,education,character and ancestry. It may include the use of violence.

I will discuss a lot of topics for fun,to learn, for mental stimulation,and will ask questions of those who know more about a topic than I. Often I express a dissenting opinion,but will rarely argue the point past two stages.

I do not conflate winning an argument with being right and have no desire or need convince others of my point of view on anything. There are some people with whom I simply will not bother. Collectively, I call those people 'stuffwits'.I've noticed my list getting longer in recent years.

Of course, one can certainly learn about another by discussing things. However, I've found it's more effective to ask open questions and listen if you have the interest and the patience. I rarely have both at the same time.


I seldom change my opnion on the basis of an argument,but may use it for a starting point to learn a different point of view.