Category: Debate

In the First Place: Why Public Debate Is Usually Pointless

6/6/2014

What are the pillars of our society?

Those who make decisions on our behalf, those who enforce those decisions and those who report them to us:

Government
Churches
The military
The media

They are all institutions whose existences are based on beliefs they do not accept
any dissension from.

Government – we are legitimate and all of our actions are legitimate
Churches – our dogma is correct and you will be punished in the next life if you disobey
The military – our wars are justified and you are not patriotic if you say otherwise
The media – what we say is true, we hide nothing important and if you disagree, you are a nut.

The institutions control public discussion by labeling thoughts that would harm their existence. The following questions will never be answered by any of these pillars:

Government – What is national security and what types of information are really hidden to the public for this reason?
Churches – Can you prove that the leader of your religion really existed?
The military – How many soldiers would you recruit if you told them the truth about why we were sending them to war?
The media – How often are you pressured into dropping stories and who pressures you?

To get these questions answered, we need another actor to join the debate. Many fear the institutions and their enormous power and do not ask why our society functions as it does.

But we need the questions answered.

Almost every debate, whether about something like guns (especially in light of recent reported shootings in the national news) or butter (like the perpetual debate of how much money to devote to the military) starts off with at least one of the false beliefs stated above. In short, the debate gets it wrong IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Be a part of a public that reasonably questions what we hear. Disregard those who state beliefs but do not back them up or who refuse to answer your questions. This is how we collectively will get these questions answered. Then we can discuss the details.

4 Comments

What a Mitty Campaign

10/20/2012

0 Comments

Governor Romney,

You are doing the impossible. Your campaign is making my old nemesis, Ronald Reagan, look good.

The old school of Republicans did not politicize tragedy like you have. They did not hold press conferences to denounce their opponents’ Administrations like you have done recently in regards to the tragedy in Libya.

Ronald Reagan did not use the Iran Hostage Crisis to attack President Carter the way that you have gone after President Obama.

Reagan told lies but not as shamelessly as you have. And when called upon their lies, they did not blame the imaginary “liberal media” for reporting them.

What is with your complaint about Candy Crowley? She upheld President Obama’s assertion that he called the Libyan tragedy an “act of terrorism” the day after it happened. You made a specific allegation about Obama and it was wrong. Fess up and quit whining!

Republicans like you do not apologize. It is not that you are without fault, but that you believe you have impunity.

How does one obtain impunity?

When one knows that a significant group of people has their back. Complaints about media bias would go nowhere unless someone amplified it.

How does a message get amplified?

Through a medium of communication. Also known collectively as the media.

Turn on the talk radio stations. You will hear the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and many others who spin the conservative/New Republican line about media “bias.”

Go to the Internet. There are plenty of web sites with this same take on the media.

Look at the newspapers. Most editorial boards endorse the GOP candidate for president.

Most people are not getting information from people like Candy Crowley. You just didn’t like getting called out in front of millions of people who watched the debate.

You just don’t like it when someone disagrees with you. So take your own media, free of critical thought, and enjoy it. Let the rest of us think for ourselves.

0 Comments

From Garfield to Aurora: History's Lessons about Firearms

8/19/2012

1 Comment

Source: http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-gun-image10578021

James A. Garfield was the last United States president to take the job without first seeking it. He may not have wanted the job, but the public certainly wanted him.

As a man who rose from poverty, the poor liked him.

As a man who achieved wealth on his own, the wealthy liked him.

As a man who welcomed the former Confederate States back, the South liked him.

As a man who had taken in and hidden a runaway slave, the former slaves liked him.

So why did someone shoot him?

The year was 1881. Before the automobile. Before the Secret Service protected the president. Before medical care included antiseptic practices. Before job seekers went through civil service to get a job with the federal government. Before public mental institutions.

The president walked unguarded in public. He took the train to go out of town just like any other citizen. The bullet-proof limousine came much later.

On the day of the assassination, July 2, 1881, President Garfield walked with a few aides, including the Secretary of State, but none had the responsibility of guarding against would-be assassins. There was a Secret Service then. They protected the public against counterfeiters. They did not protect the president until after the NEXT presidential assassination twenty years later.

The gunman shot Garfield twice in the back. One went through him and one lodged in him. Neither struck a vital organ. The president would have been much better off NOT receiving the medical treatment that he did. The physician who treated him on site did not use gloves nor any anti-septic procedures which were known at the time but not widely practiced. Garfield really died of infection from medical care.

Assassin Charles Guiteau (Gee-To) sought a job in foreign service. He stood in line like many other office seekers. He came back to the White House several times to make his case, mostly with the president’s personal secretary. A simple civil service test would have screened out the man, who had no qualifications for the job he wanted.

Guiteau also harassed the Vice President Chester Arthur and other presidential advisors by stalking them and walking up to them in public. His rude behavior in a church even caught the attention of the president. His family knew he had a mental illness, but could not afford to place him in a private institution. Public institutions were not then common.

History was not of much help to warn the public. While it is true that the assassination of President Lincoln sixteen years prior was still fresh in the public mind, most people believed that the murder was an act of war rather than an assassination.

We still experience the tragedy of violence today. But we are no better off in stopping the recent horror of the movie theater shootings in Aurora, Colorado if we accept the status quo without question. The parallels between Guiteau and the accused shooter in Aurora are startling:

Both obtained the weapons they used legally and without question.

Both exhibited signs of anti-social activity before the events for which they are associated.

Cries for their executions sprang up immediately.

Few people in either case wanted to discuss the underlying factors, such as gun availability.

So I have some questions about violence, especially gun-related, in our society in 2012:

Does the Second Amendment to the Constitution permit ANYONE to buy a firearm?

(If your answer is yes, you would appear to be in agreement with the strict wording of this Amendment. That would mean children, convicted criminals and the mentally ill may purchase firearms without question).

(If your answer is no, where do we draw the line so as not to contradict the Constitution?)

We need a rational discussion about the use of weapons and who may purchase them. It is not the result of this discussion that matters so much, but the open-mindedness of those who participate. Who wants to talk?

Take the poll on Hartwell Perspective here

Background Source: Destiny of the Republic: A Tale of Madness, Medicine and the Murder of a President (Anchor: 2011) by Candice Millard

1 Comment

Fess up, Frenchy - There Was No Immaculate Reception

7/12/2012

2 Comments

You will find this chapter in Dean T. Hartwell's JUST-RELEASED book A Fan's Folklore: Six Seasons of Triumph, Tragedy and Tough Luck out later in 2012. Click here!

2 Comments

Keep on Talking, Newt! You Will Re-Elect Obama!

1/20/2012

0 Comments

Newt Gingrich’s response in last night’s debate to his ex-wife’s allegations that he asked for an “open” marriage showed his amazing ability to simultaneously bully others and portray himself as a victim.

Gingrich told moderator John King he was “appalled” by the choice of subject, saying“I think the destructive vicious negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office.”

He also accused the "elite media" of protecting President Obama by attacking Republicans.

His comments fired up the audience. But other than going after votes for the South Carolina primary, what was he really saying?

He was appalled by the choice of subject? Gingrich is not a private citizen, who under similar circumstances would likely have grounds to complain of an invasion of privacy. Gingrich has been a public figure for thirty years and has attacked other politicians, including former President Clinton, for private conduct.

If questions like King’s make it harder to attract people to run for office, that might be just as well. How would a President Gingrich respond to the leader of another nation (like China) whom he thought had insulted him?

And blaming the media? This same media brings Newt Gingrich to our television sets, radios and Internet sites on a regular basis and quotes him frequently. Does Gingrich believe the media helps Obama in this regard?

On second thought, Newt, keep talking. Your inane comments may be exactly what Obama needs to get re-elected!

0 Comments

How to Spot an Internet Bully

2/9/2011

3 Comments

When you discuss matters on the Internet and get responses, be alert for those who want to make you the issue. They prey upon those who have the audacity to say what they do not agree with. Once you spot them, you will be wise to avoid communicating with them.

But first you have to spot them.

The Labeler

One sign of trouble comes when somebody puts a label on you. They may say that you are a “liberal” or a “wing nut” or a “wacko” though they do not even know you and do not likely know much about your ideas.

These people are easy to identify because their use of labels is about all they have to offer. They tend to see or understand complicated issues in black and white terms and once they put you in a label box, they do not care what you have to say. Ignore them and move on to more interesting people.

The Subject Changer

A little more subtle are those who pretend to consider your point of view but they ignore the context with which you make your comments. They shift the focus of the debate.

For example, I argued in an essay in 2003 that the Democratic Party should not nominate General Wesley Clark for President. I made this statement because he had not been a member of the party for very long and he had endorsed several Republican candidates for a long period of time shortly before the Democratic primaries.

I got back replies from people who questioned whether I had paid my dues, though I was not a candidate. Some suggested I was a Republican or that I was for another candidate, neither of which was true. Here is a partial list of the replies I received:

The Exasperator

Others may ask you to provide detail for your point of view. And when you do that, they respond with more complaints about your ideas than you can wrap your head around! Too bad you are not discussing the matter in person, where you could cut them off at some point!

It can be mentally exhausting to go through each of the claims made by an opponent, especially one who misstates evidence, misquotes you or takes you out of context or otherwise manipulates you into thinking that you are in a fair debate. If you proceed with the person, you have two choices: (1) answer every claim they make or (2) answer selectively.

Neither choice is very good. Answering every claim will undoubtedly produce more rebuttals from your adversary and more headaches from their unbalanced logic. But if you only answer some of the claims, you will likely get a response that your silence on the unanswered ones must mean you endorse their point of view on them.

Conclusion

You will really go nowhere discussing anything with those who play games with the facts and with your mind. Like the one who pays the piper, you should call the tune in how you debate another person.

Simply say up front that you would like to argue one issue at a time. If the other person does not comply, walk away. If they call you names, walk away. If they insinuate you do not care about victims or any other irrational point of view, walk away.

And walk towards the conversations of civilized people.

3 Comments

How to Argue with In-Laws

6/7/2010

2 Comments

“Are you serious?”

My in-laws shook their heads and said that they indeed believe that President Obama is not really a natural born citizen.

The whole afternoon, I had tried to reason with a group of people whose political background contrasted sharply with mine. The conversation had gone well, even with their statements that they supported the “Tea Party” movement, that they disagreed with Obama on many issues and their point of view that taxes were too high.

During this part of the conversation, we were able to carry on OK because we discussed topics of concern to all, or at least a great majority of citizens. I would welcome a dialogue about taxation, entitlements, foreign policy or just about anything else as long as it is based on reason and relevance.

But then we got stuck. What was with their idea that Obama is not constitutionally qualified to serve as president?

They said he signed some form back in college that allowed him to get money as a non-citizen. Even though it would be interesting to see a copy of this form, I told them that it was not relevant to the discussion. (See footnotes below for a full analysis of Obama’s natural born citizenship.)

I pointed out he was born in Hawaii, which made him a natural born citizen. They sneered and said he was born in Kenya.

So I used one of my critical thinking tools: the “Summary Judgment Approach.” I will stipulate, or agree strictly for the sake of moving an argument, to the opposition point of view.

So, I said “Fine. Let’s say he was born in Kenya. He would still be a natural born citizen because his mother was born in the United States. The bottom line, I told them, is that Obama was born a U.S. citizen via his mother and never needed to be naturalized.

Even if they wanted to take this argument to an extreme and say he REALLY isn’t a natural born citizen just because they say so, the federal constitution demands that someone who has been harmed by Obama must file a case in the appropriate court and say how Obama has harmed them. If someone did that, they would also have to find a way for the courts to redress the problem (hint: they can’t).

As is so often the case when people hear what they do not want to hear, my in-laws resorted to some tactics of their own. They told me that I shouldn’t be believed because I was from California (an “ad hominem” attack) and further insinuated that I am not as patriotic as they (a type of “straw man” tactic because they created a straw man by putting words in my mouth and then attacked me).

Other issues came up during our discussion that revealed more debating flaws. All of them derided socialism, but some of them admitted to having benefitted from it - my cousin-in-law who received good disability payments stemming from an injury while he served as a postal worker; my uncle-in-law, who received top medical benefits because of his military service; and my father-in-law, who was receiving care from a hospice. This flaw is known as hypocrisy, or perhaps "what's good for me is not good for them."

Our time together could not have been complete without one of them saying how much he hated illegal immigration. We finally agreed on something: illegal immigration is illegal. But as we drove around in triple-digit heat, we did not notice any white people out doing their landscaping. Someone asked if any of us, all of whom are here legally and have white skin, are willing to work in this kind of heat. It is hard to solve the problem of illegal immigration when those here legally have aversion to certain types of work. This debate problem is "talk is cheap."

By the time we finished talking, I sensed that the conversation benefitted me more than them. They probably had not heard in person from someone whose views did not match their own. It’s too bad because that is a good way to learn new things and to reduce one’s poor debating practices.

Footnotes: Here are two sites worth visiting on the subject of Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp

2 Comments

Would You Rather Be Jefferson Davis or Benedict Arnold?

6/2/2010

2 Comments

Does anyone really change their mind?

An experience I had at work may have provided me with an answer. I work for a city as a public employee and served as an alternate representative for the existing union. A faction of the union wanted to bring in an outside union to replace the existing one and made motions at an official meeting to that effect.

Displeased with the manner in which the existing union management attempted to stop the motions by declaring them illegal, I voted with the faction (and on behalf of my regular representative, who bolted from the meeting with several others to try to stop the quorum).

Early on, I felt as though the battle lines were clearly drawn. Even though I contended from the beginning that I simply wanted a vote to be held among all employees in my class to allow choice between the two unions, I was “typecast” by those siding with the existing union as one of “those people.”

I wrote out and sent messages to all voting members of the union explaining my point of view, discussing ways the two sides could compromise and responding to various bits of what I believed to be misinformation by the other side. (Neither side behaved especially professionally in this mess).

What did the other side typically say? They would correct me and insult me if I so much as forgot to identify myself as an alternate. Neither side trusted one another and no one gave an inch.

Throughout this time, each side sent assertions of fact back and forth on the emails and also posted messages on bulletin boards in break rooms. But no member of either side publicly announced that they were convinced of the correctness of the other side's point of view. Why was that?

Because once the lines are drawn and “shots” are fired, people tend to “duck for cover” and line up with their allies. Does anyone really change sides? All we need do to answer that question is to answer this one: Who is the greater villain in United States history – Jefferson Davis or Benedict Arnold?

I could have pounded away at those who opposed a vote with sound arguments on many grounds. In fact, I did. I sent messages of my arguments to the union president, vice president and counsel. In the end, the union management got its way, I left the union and I hear things are back to normal.

2 Comments

How to Argue and Win...or at Least Be Right!

5/27/2010

1 Comment

Would you rather be happy or right? Obviously, it would be best if we could be both. But many times we argue with people who are just as convinced that they are right as we are. They may wind up playing a game of verbal “chicken,” in which they try to force you to get out of the way of their message and be declared the “loser.” When you get involved in a heated argument, consider your two choices. If you really, really need to be right all of the time, be prepared to do the following:

Determine why everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. When you debate person after person and keep declaring yourself unequivocally right, you will have to satisfy your own mind as to how this could be so. Are the other people stupid, uninformed, biased, bought off or perhaps playing the devil’s advocate to annoy you?
Always choose the subject for debates. You will need to determine how to keep those wrong-headed people on their toes and challenge them on issues you know something about. Remember that if they fire back at you about something you know nothing about, you’ll have to fake it or say those words you love to hear other people say “I don’t know.”
Borrow some stereotypes to help you when you get stuck in your righteous arguments. You can tell people their “liberal” ideas are against what they mainstream public needs. Or, if need be, you could tell people their “conservative” or “Tea Party” ideas are not what the mainstream public needs. Go ahead and be a “switch-hitter” - just keep track of your audiences!
Keep a few phrases handy when you fear you may be wrong, or, well, not quite right. Practice telling your opponents that they “don’t get it,” they “do not have one iota of proof” or they suffer from a disorder no one has heard of. The saying that "it is what it is" is perfect because it is so hard to argue with. If you can’t be right, you can at least sound like it.
Don’t forget to imply things. Telling the other side that people like them have “closed minds” or that they are borderline racist sends the message that they can fight back at their risk – you can always say you referred to other people and not them.

Being right all the time is difficult. Admitting that your opponent’s argument has any merit is for fools. You must not give in, compromise or say “whatever.” That is for those crazy people who want to be happy. Once you convince yourself that you have all of the answers, you’ll be too far gone to care!

1 Comment

Without Critical Thinking, the Public Will Lose Its Mind

3/31/2010

0 Comments

One of the few issues that unites almost everyone is opposition to waste. No one openly favors wasteful spending or wasting opportunities, for instance. So I want to identify those who have wasted something even more valuable, our time and to demonstrate the much-needed use of critical thinking.

We can start of with those who have made false statements about Barack Obama. Their inane comments would all have been disposed of easily had only they listened:

False: Obama was not a natural-born citizen and is not eligible under the Constitution to serve as the President of the United States.

True: Obama is a natural-born citizen because he was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and newspaper clippings prove. He is also a natural-born citizen because his mother was a citizen of the United States. Even if he had been born in Kenya, as "birthers" contend, he would be natural born and could serve as the President.

False: Obama is a Muslim.
True: Obama is a Christian. It does not matter if he were a Muslim, anyway.

We can then move on to the insidious comments made by "Tea Party" members and others in the health care reform debate:

False: The federal government takeover of the health insurance industry is unconstitutional as a violation of states' rights.

True: Even if we choose to see it that way, it is no more a violation than the federal government's control over policies enacted by states about medical marijuana and physician-assisted suicide.

False: We can't have health care reform that is socialist.
True: We already have socialism in our nation in the form of the use of individual taxes to pay for libraries, the police and air quality, as well as many other things that individuals cannot do by themselves. It is also worth pointing out that the military and federal officials participate in health care plans that could be described as socialist.

False: We cannot trust our government to handle health care.
True: That may be so, but can we trust private corporations who continue to raise premiums sky high?

We could continue with any one of a number of obviously false statements that many people in our nation fell for. But the point is that fewer and fewer people seem to think or want to think about what they are being told.

Discussion of the national debt serves to bring this idea home. While we know the national debt to be well over $12 million, few understand how it got to be this way, what its significance is and what we can do about it. Too many keep parroting the line that Obama has put us in serious debt.

The fact is, his predecessors going back to Reagan (and excluding Clinton) have brought us there. Under Reagan and Bush I, the debt as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product rose from 40 percent to 70 percent. After Clinton lowered it, Bush II took to it 80 percent. (Source: http://zfacts.com)

But none of this mattes as much as the historical context. The United States had huge debts after World War II. It was worth getting these debts through high spending (namely, World War II) because the spending brought on a dynamic economy, which lasted from the late 1940s until the early 1970s.

With critical thinking, we could see the whole picture that the United States needs a healthy economy to pay off its debts and may have to engage in spending that will help the economy to be able to make the payments. Without critical thinking, we are left with bumper sticker messages with which to engage a war of words.

Read about Dean T. Hartwell's books here!

0 Comments

In the First Place: Why Public Debate Is Usually Pointless

What a Mitty Campaign

From Garfield to Aurora: History's Lessons about Firearms

Fess up, Frenchy - There Was No Immaculate Reception

Keep on Talking, Newt! You Will Re-Elect Obama!

How to Spot an Internet Bully

How to Argue with In-Laws

Would You Rather Be Jefferson Davis or Benedict Arnold?

How to Argue and Win...or at Least Be Right!

Without Critical Thinking, the Public Will Lose Its Mind

Author

Categories

Archives