Political Education (PE) Part 1/?: Stop Debating.

The focus on "debates" as a meaningful way to educate and shift people left is hurting the movement.

It’s been a bit since my last post as I was traveling to visit some family and attend a funeral. So for those who’ve stuck around, I appreciate you. That being said, let’s not waste a ton of words on my absence, but rather what should be absent from the left: Debates.

The Form and Function of a Debate:

The concept behind debating someone, is that the two parties involved would have some meaningful question that needs to be answered, usually around a policy or moral dilemma. Each party picks a side, researches as much as they can, then in an organized and orderly manner, they present their evidence in turns. Whomever has the evidence that best represents reality, and is most convincing wins. From this point, the matter is considered settled, we all agree on the facts, and we move forward as a society smarter and more connected.

That is also a total pipe-dream for debate bros, you know: white guys with neck-beards who read like four pages of the manifesto and have determined that communism is when no iphone. There are dozens of them across the internet, television, and radio. They treat debates as a method by which they can show off how brilliant and clever they are and has zero regard for the outcome of the debate. Who wins is simply a matter who you happen to have built a weird para-social relationship with and has absolutely nothing to do with facts or reality. In fact, the most common evidence for a “win” is whether or not someone was “owned” at some point, or whether or not one of the parties simply spoke in a manner some racist viewer finds uncivilized.

So if these things are so awful, why do we waste our time and energy on them? Well, the short answer goes back to the keywords in the previous paragraph: Para-social relationships. The internet has created a slew of randomly famous people for seemingly no reason at all. They aren’t necessarily smart, good-looking, poignant, interesting, or kind. But they are: dramatic, angry, loud, condescending, and petty. All of the traits, most embodied by those who refuse to go outside and be useful. As such, these internet celebrities build massive fan bases, who will declare them right about anything and everything without a second thought, or moment of reasoning involved.

It’s my belief that this alone has opened a great number of doors that lead the leftist movement down a path in which nothing good comes. By hyper-focusing on debate bros and debate bro culture, those participating are spending their time watching two grown adults screech like children at one another instead of performing mutual aid, working on themselves, or their homes (remember the posts about growing your own food? You can’t tend a garden if you’re busy watching to dipshits argue), or organizing in their neighborhoods.

Some folks will argue that these debates ARE a form of organizing. By presenting their worldview in a clear and direct way, people who listen will be swayed by their opinions and join the cause. The people who believe that are either 1) idiots who have zero object permanence; or 2) liars, who understand fully that debate culture is simply upper-middle class white people clout chasing, and they are trying to cash in. Nobody watches two morons from Fox News and CNN yelling at each other and walks away smarter and better informed. The same goes for any two random guys off Youtube. Two people talking past one another and only listening to respond and not to understand cannot be valuable in swaying anyone to anything.

How to glean anything at all from people who insist on debates:

So, that being said, you’ve chosen to waste some amount of time watching some self proclaimed leftist argue with someone else live on the internet somewhere. You want to make sure that you, unlike all the other rubes aren’t just being taken for a ride and free clicks and want to learn something. The key is to understand two main concepts: Validity, and Soundness. This is Philosophy 101, Intro to logic stuff so if you’re familiar, skip ahead.

Validity in the analytic philosophy tradition is defined as: If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. Or in other words, the conclusion has to follow from the statements made prior. There are three truth preserving logical structures you can employ to determine whether or not the argument someone is making is valid. A valid argument is not simply words they said that we consider to be good because they said them and everyone is allowed to say things. No, valid is a specific thing. It means the statements you are making have a point, and that point is to spread some amount of truth into the world.

As mentioned, there are three forms you can use which stem from the works of the ancient Greeks: Modus Ponens, Modus Tolens, and Disjunctive Syllogism. The first two use a conditional statement in the form of IF, THEN. If you program for a living, then you’ll be familiar with that concept. See what I did there? Smart. Either before or after your conditional statement there is some stand alone claim, and then you have a conclusion drawn from those. They look like this:

If P, then Q.

P

Therefore, Q.

Or in English:

If it is raining outside (P), then it is cloudy (Q).

It is raining outside (P).

Therefore, it is cloudy (Q).

The above argument is in the form of Modus Ponens. We’re not currently discussing whether or not it’s actually raining or cloudy, that will come later. Rather, we’re discussing whether or not the logic you’re applying to the world tracks. In this case it does. We know that you can’t have rain without clouds, so if it is raining, then there MUST be clouds for the rain to come from.

The form Modus Tollens is a negation of the Modus Ponens that would look like:

If P, then Not Q

P

Therefore Not Q

Or in English:

If it is Sunny (P), then it is not cloudy (Q)

It is sunny (P)

Therefore, it is not cloudy (Q)

We can see in the above examples, that while the merits of sunny or cloudy, or raining will depend on where you live and the weather at your house, the logic follows in a way which connects with how we collectively view and understand the world. The third form is one in which what is called an exclusive OR statement is made, and a choice given, so we can conclude the negation of the second choice.

P or Q

P

Therefore Not Q

Or in English:

For dinner you can have hamburgers (P) or Hotdogs (Q)

You choose Hamburgers (P)

So you don’t get a Hotdog (Not Q)

As you watch any debate, the key is to be able to put the claims they are making into one of these forms. If you can’t, that means the person talking is just rambling like an idiot and in fact not owning anyone with facts and logic. If you’re interested in practicing this, you can watch any number of videos by Ben Shapiro or Charlie Kirk, or even Jimmy Dore and none of their arguments will meet the baseline criteria.

Once you’ve established if something is Valid, now we can discuss if the argument is Sound. Soundness is another technical term in philosophy and is defined as: An argument is sound if it is both 1) Valid, and 2) the premises are true. So in our above examples, the soundness of those arguments will be determined by looking out your window or checking the weather somehow. In a more universal argument we can use the common example of:

All men are mortal (P).

Socrates is a Man (Q).

If All men are mortal (P) & Socrates is a Man (Q), then Socrates is Mortal (R)

Therefore, Socrates is Mortal.

So we see that it is valid in that it is in the Modus Ponens structure, and we know that the premises are true, because nobody is immortal, Socrates was a man and died, so that argument would be SOUND.

Putting it together and understanding the bigger picture:

So while you having now read this, may be better prepared to determine whether or not internet losers are attempting to solve complicated dilemmas or are just grifting for clicks and money, not everyone else is. It’s vital to recognize that most people lack a foundational understand of basic logic, and how to apply it in the real world.

It’s also worth noting that the things said here only apply to those who are arguing or debating in good faith. Some groups like that of nazis, white supremacists, bigots, etc, aren’t trying to debate in good faith, and don’t care about winning or losing. They simply are looking to say whatever stupid nonsense they believe out loud in a public forum and hope that some number of listeners are weak minded enough to buy it. The idea that you could debate someone in such a way that they look so foolish their entire ideology folds and you end racism forever is just peak white savior nonsense. Yah I said white. Debate culture is a predominately white thing, which should have been a red flag to begin with for you. The idea that two idiots should sit around and discourse about actual problems had by actual people, instead of doing anything helpful is a problem.

So when you’re on Youtube, or Twitter, or some other place, even out in the streets, and some dipshit wants to debate about something, or there is hype being created for two random white guys to debate like it’s a boxing title fight and everyone is trying to pick sides, remember the best side to pick is neither. Simply by participating in that, everyone involved loses. They are all dumber for having heard it and their valuable time is wasted.

-EQ