The Need for Negative Critical Heated Debate

Arguing is vital for societal and individual progress, resolution, discovery and wisdom. Without unfettered honest argument, we are all doomed.

We start arguing from a young age with our parents. They argue back and the formula we are all familiar with plays out. We learn to defend our views, our values, our egos with words and statements, apologies and other tools to do so. We argue with passion directly proportional to the importance of the subject, the delicacy of our ego, the nature of our temperament and other factors.

It is natural and good for an argument to touch our soul, our raw nerves, our values. It is natural to feel passionate in an argument.

As we get older, we learn more about the periphery of arguing and its structure, its nature and potential to be improved or degraded, its value, the argument itself, becomes a personal life-long subject of inquiry and tool for development.

Then approaching adulthood we meet people who paradoxically argue against arguing. Or if not in pursuit of wholesale opposition, they presume to lay down the limits and scope of argument subjectively in a way to win. The rules and the intellectual prerequisites are argued to be abided by before proceeding. How arrogant. And thus ad hominem is born among other fallacies to win the argument by cheating - through other means than clarity, logic, empirical evidence and the more objective structural attributes of the argument.

Instead, the less cultured antagonist will stoop to mean and cheap cheating to defeat the opponent through insults and fallacies.

As if that weren't enough to discourage the activity or arguing, the honest then face a movement among people that an argument should never be negative, non-constructively critical, or offensive. The argument should not be driven or accompanied by emotion or passion.

With all these rules and limitations, the argument itself faces extinction, if such a movement gains powerful backing and succeeds in its aim.

The aim will remove the human and humanity from an argument.

We argue that these limitations beyond logic and evidence and objective tools and frameworks must be removed.

An argument without passion is merely an academic or intellectual pursuit to solve a harmless puzzle.

And of course the many things in dire need of public debate today are likely to offend by their very nature. Abortion, obesity, sexual orientation, gender identity, terrorism, religion - all gone.

What is needed now more than ever is passionate heated debate, because then we know its honest and truth is the goal, not a trophy for best person.

If we are stopped from seeking truth from the very beginning because we're too negative or too critical or offensive, then those immense complicated and important arguments will not happen and the problem will remain and will grow and will do harm to all.

Fear of arguing is a poor development of humanity. It will lead to more hatred and suffering.

The Voice of the Youth... Baaaaaaaa

The Gen Y and Millenial generations are quickly becoming monolithic in their views about serious societal and political issues.

It doesn't seem to matter what the issue is, if it involves a minority, it must be supported and supported without deliberation, argument or any facts.

Whatever the issue, every single person is perfect and good and flawless and correct, without condition.

Thus, if someone wants to identify has a Skoda sedan, they must be supported and any contrary view is wrong and must be crushed.

This axiomatic mindless fundanmentalism is the litmus test of any debate.

But what's behind it?

Fundamentally, there are psychological drivers:

- I don't like authorities telling me what is good or right, so I reject all authority.

- I am weak and politically powerless so I will join a group of likeminded weaklings to feel like I belong and I am supported.

- I lack the intellect and knowledge to argue in support of my personal views, so I will defer to emotion to defeat opponents.

- Logic and science are very powerful and a threat to my ego, so I will join movements that oppose them.

So we can now predict with accuracy the causes Gen Y and Millenials will support based on these fundamentals.

They will support all minorities who suffer existentially from criticism by logic, science, reasoning and other powers behind conventional thought.

- Muslims
- Obese people
- Transgender people
- Feminists
- Vegans
- Homosexuals
- Alternative life stylers
- Ecological warriors and Environmentalists
- Religious people
- Ethinc groups and immigrants from minorities

Our young people will mindlessly support all these groups NOT because they can see a need, but because they are in fashion and they satisfy the fundamental drivers behind their support above.

This is fraudulent, anti-intellectual, and promotes the worst characteristics of human beings:

- Bullshitting to look good
- Knocking others down to make us feel better or more powerful
- Cheating
- Enjoying the defeat of superiors
- Pleasure from defeating authorities
- Schadenfreud

The problem for young is that the smartest of us can see right through this thin veil. We know what you are doing and why. You can't fool us. You are a sheep and you Baa because you are pathetic.

We're on to you.

Please Don't Hurt Me... Or I'll Crush You!

The time we are living in will be remembered in history as many things, including the Age of the Vengeful Victim.

In the past, an arguer would be defeated by Logic, Empirical Evidence or deferring to Moral Taste. There the argument would end. The loser withdrawing to their room for contemplation or self-pity.

Today, the Loser in the argument can rebound and make an Appeal to authorities for having had their feelings hurt. A punishment will be sought.

Today, the Loser can conclude the argument by pressing for a breach in social, employment policy or legislation. Thus the Loser gets to win the argument by ad hominem.

The failed polemicist thus converts into The Victim. A victim demanding retribution.

This last resort of the meek is not lost on today's contenders, who are now beginning to shy away from frank and fearless argument altogether.

The fear of being punished by an opponent with the weight of law behind them is prophylactic.

Why risk serious and enduring harm just to speak your truth?

How will this trend evolve?

Honest debate will end. The pursuit of truth cut short. The search for truth and clarity too risky to pursue. What will society look like in such a world?

A society where serious problems go unsolved for fear of the consequences of offering diverse views.

And all the while, the meek shall celebrate the power of professing their views free from criticism and intellectual testing.

This is a world prohesied as warning from Huxley to Orwell to Russell and all those who cherish Freedom of Speech and the merciless pusuit of truth and accuracy and intellligence over emotion and appeasement of psychological fragility.

It is a world doomed to silence. A world ruled by the ignorant, the pathetic, the frail.

We advise all those who have benefited from the sacrifice of Free Thinkers and brave interlocutors hitherto to stand against the oppressive minorities who demand our silence in favour of their being found utterly Wrong.

Dennis Prager argues that a debater should not seek to Win an argument, but only to clarify where the debaters differ. A clarity of difference. But how can we clarify where we differ, when we cannot speak without fear of severe punishment?

Truth-Seekers of the World, UNITE!

Civil Language

If current trends in social and civil behaviour continue, a number of consequences are likely.

Apart from no one speaking the truth or their true thoughts in discussion, for fear of being charged under the law, there is the gradual removal of even simple historical and cultural greetings and spoken manners.

The following traditional terms will gradually disappear:

- Thank you
- How are you?
- Please
- Welcome
- Nice to see you
- How is he/she?
- You look good/well/great

Two drivers behind the disappearance are developing concurrently:

1. Fear of offense
2. Social-Media Speak

Fear of offending someone is currently annoying, but will soon be a factor prior to all social contact.

Text messaging and email language is now appearing in verbal conversation.

Both developments are changing the language used traditionally without fear or concern.

That change is not seeking improvement of communication or eloquence or respect. That change has a hidden agenda to prevent an opponent from defeating your argument, and thereby your delicate fragile ego.

Thus, the agenda is fraudulent and anti-truth. It must be stopped from developing and shown up for what it is.

Because Political Correctness and the Internet has now given voice to minorities, we are now seeing the explosion of minority views on social communication domains. They thought they could just announce their bullshit minority views without response.

Now they are not happy with the responses and want to shut them down, because the responses seek truth not bullshit and so there is the dispute.

Now the responders won;t be shut down, so the minorities appeal to the law and the politically powerful to shut down their responders.

That's cheating. That's lazy. That is not how we argue and discuss important issues.

But the fear of speaking the truth extends beyond disussion to common traditional greetings and banter.

From here on, people are too scared to say things to others at the point of meeting for fear of offending them. So, it would be safer to say nothing, or something contrived as neutral.

When we live in a world where saying anything can be taken as offensive, people will stop talking all together.

Is that good for a community?