The Death of Debate
I'll lose this debate, but not because I'm wrong.
Over the past 20-plus years I’ve been writing, someone will hit me up with confident conviction and state:
“You are bad, your advice is bad, you should feel bad, debate me, coward!”
My typical response is to ignore them, dissect their objections (if they have any), and spell out their ignorance until they get bored.
I’ve become less and less interested in debate over time. It’s generally a distraction from doing real work, and most would-be debaters just straw man you in the hopes their followers will have an opportunity to reaffirm them. Few people on social media even know what a logical fallacy is, and when they get caught in one, they cover it up with middle-school taunts.
Think about what a debate is and what it has meant in the past… the nature of the argument has changed a lot over time. In the past, argument took the form of classical discourse. This wasn’t the back-and-forth process we know today. It was a rhetorical speech intended to persuade. It could be for a single person, but primarily the speech was directed at an audience.
After classical discourse came modern discourse; this was a back-and-forth process between two debaters who took on oppositional roles but essentially engaged in a cooperative process whose goal was to establish truth by determining which case was more persuasive.
Then came post-modern discourse. This takes the form of a no-holds-barred struggle to discredit not only the other speaker’s position but the speaker himself. The goal is not to prove the opposition wrong but to silence it so that one’s own position will dominate the conversation.
Thus:
Classical discourse: Intended to persuade an audience. (“This is important because...”)
Modern discourse: Intended to establish a truth by playing advocate. (“You have committed a logical fallacy...”)
Post-Modern discourse: Intended to establish your views as a social standard via sheer dominance. (“You are a liar!”)
Most arguments nowadays are post-modern. What goes unnoticed in the social media age is we’ve entered a Post-Discourse Age. Argument itself is obsolete. Arguments are no longer meant to persuade, they no longer establish truth, nor do they determine whose views will dominate the social discourse.
Persuasion requires a receptive audience. Post-modern discourse in the social media age has made this largely impossible. To establish truth is to test. It’s not a contest of theoretical constructs of logic based upon belief sets. Whose worldview will influence thinking and language is determined by how those ideas spread themselves and whose repetition they require.
Debate is no longer relevant either as a means of discovery or dominance. Who wins the debate is not determined by debating. It is determined for forces entirely external to the debate. This means that arguing is no longer empowering… it is merely a means of entertainment. They don't want a definition of objective truth. They want an archetype they can agree with or hate on to determine if you're on their ideological team or the opposition.
In situations where you wish to achieve power or appear powerful, you must avoid debating. What passes for debate is, at best, an idle pastime. At worst, a weak move that signals an internal need for others to agree with you. Demonstrate, do not explicate. Impose your will upon the world by acting, doing, and showing, not by passively begging others to agree or to act.
Law 9: Win through your actions, never through argument.
Any momentary triumph you think you have gained through argument is really a Pyrrhic victory: The resentment and ill will you stir up is stronger and last longer than any momentary change of opinion. It is much more powerful to get others to agree with you through your actions without saying a word. Demonstrate, do not explicate.
– The 48 Laws of Power, Robert Greene
If there is something you want, never argue. Do. Argument and debate are effectively dead in the age of influence. If you do find yourself railroaded into what this generation thinks is a debate, understand that it’s a team sport, and you’ll likely lose the debate, but not because you’re wrong. You’re just less entertaining than the guy who ‘won.’