Healthy Debate

The Blind Men and the Elephant 

Not far from Ghur once stood a city tall

Whose denizens were sightless one and all

A certain Sultan once, when passing nigh,

Had pitched his camp upon the plain hard by

Wherein to prove his splendour, rank and state,

Was kept an elephant most huge and great.

Then in the townsmen's minds arose desire

To know the nature of this creature dire.

Blind delegates by blind electorate

Were therefore chosen to investigate

The beast, and each, by feeling trunk or limb,

Strove to acquire an image clear of him.

Thus each conceived a visionary whole,

And to the phantom clung with heart and soul.

When to the city they were come again,

The eager townsmen flocked to them amain.

Each one of them -wrong and misguided all -

Was eager his impressions to recall.

Asked to describe the creature's size and shape,

They spoke, while round about them, all agape,

Stamping impatiently, their comrades swarm

To hear about the monster's shape and form.

Now, for his knowledge each inquiring wight

Must trust to touch, being devoid of sight,

So he who'd only felt the creature's ear,

On being asked: "How doth its heart appear?"

"Mighty and terrible," at one replied,

"Like a carpet, hard and flat and wide!"

Then he who on its trunk had laid his hand

Broke in: "Nay, nay! I better understand!

'Tis like a water-pipe, I tell you true,

Hollow, yet deadly and destructive too";

While he who'd had but leisure to explore

The sturdy limbs which the great beast upbore,

Exclaimed: "No, no! To all men be it known

'Tis like a column tapered to a cone!"

Each had but known one part, and no man all;

Hence into deadly error each did fall.

No way to know the All man's heart can find:

Can knowledge e'er accompany the blind.

 Omar Khayyam

The way I'm looking at it is that people hold personal opinions about many topics - race, religion, politics, health etc. Ideas and beliefs are held with a certain amount of conviction - a sense of ownership if you like.

Attacking the viewpoint is different from attacking the person. But in attacking the viewpoint a person may feel attacked in their person, simply because the viewpoint is so close to their heart. This can lead to mistaken or misdirected ripostes of a 'personal' nature.

'Personal' means making a remark about someone's intellect (among other things) for example, calling some one stupid, or insane. That kind of name-calling would be a seen as insulting - which is to be frowned upon and discouraged. Calling a person's beliefs 'stupid' or 'insane' (for example) also runs the risk of being seen as 'personal', but in reality people do hold stupid, illogical and nonsensical ideas.  So a reasonable degree of caution is justified.

It can be scary at times expressing opinions out here, because your words are on a website, for the world to see. It is a process of learning to 'thicken the skin on one's back' or from a more positive perspective: strengthening one's mental muscle.

Interactive websites usually self-select those who can bear a degree of criticism and the rough and tumble of debate. Some egos naturally feel bruised.  After all no one likes their closely held views demolished in public - especially if those ideas views were obviously lame ones. Demolitions of opinions (like buildings) can happen in a controlled and respectable way. That's OK I think.  

One way to reduce the risk of getting 'slaughtered' out here, is not to respond in haste or heated emotions. If you feel a burning need to respond immediately with contempt, then hold on to it for a while. Write it and save it in as file on your computer. Give it a few hours or a day. Come back at it modify it if you wish. Then cut and paste into the site for submission. I certainly practise this. It isn't perfect. Many times after I come back at my thoughts I am glad that I did not send them off in haste.

I agree with the overall thrust that we need to keep it healthy. It need not necessarily be impersonal, but if it is about demolishing personal opinions - it should be done with respect.

However, this site is not just about battle and winning points. Seeing the merit in someone else's argument is a very useful way of learning new ways of thinking. Seeing merit is not about becoming convinced or being compelled to accept. It is about appreciating differences, empathy and gaining new perspectives. No matter how much each of us knows we are 'right', there is likely to be another perspective that is held with equal and opposing conviction.

Let's learn and grow together.

For those with further interests in developing mooting and debating skills, I'd like to recommend a few pieces of very good software that I use:

1. Rationale - at www.austhink.com - this is about Argument mapping.
2. MindManager 6 - at www.mindjet.com - excellent mind-mapping software.
3. TimelineMaker Pro - www.timelinemaker.com - good for seeing how situations develop.

I declare that I hold no pecuniary interests in, nor derive benefit from organisations promoting the above software.