Dialogue vs. Debate...What DO WE DO?
Greetings of Afrikan Love Family,

I am Joanie, a RE~covering Afrikan amerikkkan and RE~presentative from the Voices in the Margins.

This topic came up in another thread and I was interested in folks perspective on what WE tend to DO more often than not, on this forum.

Based on my overstanding of “Debate vs. Dialogue”, I would say WE DO more debating than dialoguing and this causes what appears, as a vast difference in ideas.

Allow me to share more.

DIALOGUE:

•Collaborative: two or more sides work together toward common understanding

•Finding common ground is the goal.

•One listens to the other side(s) in order to understand, find meaning, and find agreement.

•Enlarges and possibly changes a participant’s point of view.

•Reveals assumptions for reevaluation.

•Causes introspection on one’s own position.

•Opens the possibility of reaching a better solution than any of the original solutions.

•Creates an open-minded attitude-openness to being wrong and an openness to change.

•One submits one’s best thinking, knowing that other peoples’ reflections will help improve it rather than destroy it.

•Calls for temporarily suspending one’s beliefs.

•One searches for basic agreements.


DEBATE:

•Oppositional: two sides oppose each other and attempt to prove each other wrong.

•Winning is the goal.

•One listens to the other side in order to find flaws and to counter its arguments.

•Affirms a participant’s own point of view.

•Defends assumptions as truth.

•Causes critique of the other position

•Defends one’s own positions as the best solution and excludes other solutions.

•Creates an closed-minded attitude, a determination to be right.

•One submits one’s best thinking and defends it against challenge to show that it is right.

•Calls for investing wholeheartedly in one’s beliefs

•One searches for glaring differences.


Again, it seems to me TOO MUCH debating goes on. What are your thoughts?

Akpe for allowing me to share

In Love of Afrikans home and abroad

http://www.assatashakur.org/forum/showthread.php?t=7845

That is really terrible.

That is really terrible.
LOL.

Check out this response -

Combat Liberalism

As a Revolutionary Political Organizer, I'm all for healthy debate. Debate is merely Ideological Struggle which those of us who are Revolutionaries need. This is a War we are fighting. And as Warriors taking on the struggle of Our People, ie children being lynched, beat by police, mudered by police, etc, we are dealing with Our Peoples Lives. In order to have a Sound Revolutionary Movement, we must have a Sound Revolutionary Theory and Strategy. This can only be achieved through Ideological Struggle.

Everyone is going to have ideas, and we need to struggle around the practicality of these ideas in order to keep what is sound and discard what is not. Like if we're about to go roast a sirloin, first we have to trim the fat. We can't go ahead and throw the entire thing on the grill, bad parts and all. We have to trim off what is not needed and harmful, and keep what is useful and beneficial(not that I eat sirloin). In Revolutionary struggle we are fighting for the lives of Our People, there is no room for Liberalism.

What is Liberalism:

"To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed."

Now debate becomes unhealthy when it becomes Subjective and not Objective.

Subjective is when one makes things personal. When one looks at things based on their own personal emotions, perceptions, etc as opposed to the Objective reality.

In a debate, taking things personal, name calling and insults are examples of being Subjective. Many of us are guilty of this, but we are human. The most principled thing to do in that instance is to be Self-Critical by admitting to the errs of your ways and working to correct them. This is a part of Criticism-Self-Criticism, another tool for Organizing. All these concepts I'm talking about here are a part of Political Party Discipline. And if, for example, one does become Subjective they have broken Party Disicpline.

In our debates, discourses, whatever one chooses to call them, we must remain Objective: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. We must do this to come to a Sound, Practical Revolutionary Theory.

However, we're not going to agree on everything, so the best thing we can do is agree to disagree and maintain Respect and Solidarity. Because, like I always say, once this thing goes to next the level and Our People start to accept Armed Struggle as Reality, we not going to be Talking for Freedom we gonna be Banging for Freedom at that point. We won't be talking through Our Mouths but through the Barrel of a Gun.

That "revolutionary" is a Marxist for sure. :(

personality clashes, differing approaches to the same objectives, fear-mongering, deliberate sabotage, sexual politics, ostrization, marginalization, capitulation, false prophets, the lure of profits, popularity contests, hero worship and celebrity status, politically correct issues, demands for conformity in the call for unity, false rhetoric, new ageism & yuppie-centered values...



Solidarity?

BTW, how can one be a progressive independent and have an agenda that trumps all others?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... g_id=10913 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=10913&mesg_id=10913)

That "revolutionary" is a Marxist for sure. :(

Don't know if he is a "Marxist" but he is kinda on the right track. "Debate" and "dialogue" are the same thing, or, more properly, the Greeks invented "debate" (a set of formal rules for discussion) in order to give "dialogue" a resolution. The Greeks assumed that "dialogue" was a misnomer... that a third party, "truth", existed as the ultimate objective of conversation. In order to get to that objective which exists outside of our opinion or preference, debate, both formal and informal, became a methodology.

In contrast, the idea that all opinions are equally valid by virtue of them being embraced by someone (without the need for "proof") and the idea of "dialogue" as a means of synthesizing those ideas, valid or not, for the purpose of reaching "consensus"... those are entirely modern perspectives...

...and they are totally full-of-shit.

Don't know if he is a "Marxist" but he is kinda on the right track. "Debate" and "dialogue" are the same thing, or, more properly, the Greeks invented "debate" (a set of formal rules for discussion) in order to give "dialogue" a resolution. The Greeks assumed that "dialogue" was a misnomer... that a third party, "truth", existed as the ultimate objective of conversation. In order to get to that objective which exists outside of our opinion or preference, debate, both formal and informal, became a methodology.

In contrast, the idea that all opinions are equally valid by virtue of them being embraced by someone (without the need for "proof") and the idea of "dialogue" as a means of synthesizing those ideas, valid or not, for the purpose of reaching "consensus"... those are entirely modern perspectives...

...and they are totally full-of-shit.
hmmm...I have to say that, like the woman quoted in Mike's basenote, I see the two terms as being different. I'm happy to accept your statement about how the Attic Greeks construed the terms, but it feels to me as though the term "debate" has been re-defined. For example, what do you call a problem-solving discussion?

what do you call a problem-solving discussion?

There is an emergent new academic field called deliberative discourse. You might give that a google for some insight into what one might call a problem solving public discussion.

I'll post on this matter at some point, though I am still reading and otherwise occupied...I think we all should have a passing knopwledge of this field as it goes straight to the heart of running this community and pursuing practical real world goals. At least that's true in my opinion!

hmmm...I have to say that, like the woman quoted in Mike's basenote, I see the two terms as being different. I'm happy to accept your statement about how the Attic Greeks construed the terms, but it feels to me as though the term "debate" has been re-defined. For example, what do you call a problem-solving discussion?

It's different... A "problem-solving discussion" assumes a confluence of perspectives (a general agreement on what is "true") and cooperation for the purpose of determining "how". It is subsequent to the above (i.e. not a "debate").

BTW, a lot of the detail of formal debate originated outside of Attica...

A "problem-solving discussion" assumes a confluence of perspectives (a general agreement on what is "true") and cooperation for the purpose of determining "how". It is subsequent to the above (i.e. not a "debate")
And if there is no such agreement going in? (I feel like I'm in deep water here)

A "problem-solving discussion" assumes a confluence of perspectives (a general agreement on what is "true") and cooperation for the purpose of determining "how". It is subsequent to the above (i.e. not a "debate")
And if there is no such agreement going in? (I feel like I'm in deep water here)

No "deep water"... that is precisely the point and the "practical problem" of the "left".

Let's look at a (hypothetical) practical problem: How to present (for whatever reason), a position on the "9/11 Truth Movement"? The underlying and unresolved issue is that you (for the sake of argument) believe that the World Trade Centers were brought down by a government conspiracy and I think that is ridiculous. Further, I think the whole thing is a diversion and don't even want to talk about it. How do we "dialogue" our way to a consensus? How do we "problem-solve" our way to a practical solution? In fact, the disagreement, above, may even hide a much deeper disagreement... on the nature of "conspiracy", on the character of the "enemy", etc.

I objected to the original post above because I think that "fundamental truths" are particularly important at the present moment and that "clarity" (if not necessarily, "agreement") on these comes from "debate"....

One particularly important perspective of that type is "class"... Nominally, disagreement over that "issue" was the midwife of this board.

A "problem-solving discussion" assumes a confluence of perspectives (a general agreement on what is "true") and cooperation for the purpose of determining "how". It is subsequent to the above (i.e. not a "debate")
And if there is no such agreement going in? (I feel like I'm in deep water here)

No "deep water"... that is precisely the point and the "practical problem" of the "left".

Let's look at a (hypothetical) practical problem: How to present (for whatever reason), a position on the "9/11 Truth Movement"? The underlying and unresolved issue is that you (for the sake of argument) believe that the World Trade Centers were brought down by a government conspiracy and I think that is ridiculous. Further, I think the whole thing is a diversion and don't even want to talk about it. How do we "dialogue" our way to a consensus? How do we "problem-solve" our way to a practical solution? In fact, the disagreement, above, may even hide a much deeper disagreement... on the nature of "conspiracy", on the character of the "enemy", etc.

I objected to the original post above because I think that "fundamental truths" are particularly important at the present moment and that "clarity" (if not necessarily, "agreement") on these comes from "debate"....

One particularly important perspective of that type is "class"... Nominally, disagreement over that "issue" was the midwife of this board.

I know you'll appreciate this even if it is stilted since its written by a bizarro lunatic:

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/intro2.html#hegel

"I know you'll appreciate this even if it is stilted since its written by a bizarro lunatic:"

Get that man a "Know Nothing" Party membership card, 12 pounds of valium, and a login at PI...

"I know you'll appreciate this even if it is stilted since its written by a bizarro lunatic:"
Get that man a "Know Nothing" Party membership card, 12 pounds of valium, and a login at PI...


Could someone point how the content found at that link is stilted. It's been a while since I took any govt/political science classes. The joke eludes some inkling of understanding but nothing completely crystal clear for me. Calling the author names and cracking jokes doesn't help me the casual liberal/republican/greeny uneducated poor downtrodden person to understand what these comments "really" mean.

:?:

"I know you'll appreciate this even if it is stilted since its written by a bizarro lunatic:"
Get that man a "Know Nothing" Party membership card, 12 pounds of valium, and a login at PI...



:?:

I'll point you back to a thread at PI that you previously commented was very educational and covering this same matter - the false claim that thesis/antithesis is Hegelian:

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/d ... g_id=52493 (http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=52154&mesg_id=52493)

anaxarchos, pithily succinct and dazzlingly brilliant. this is a test of the emergency cognition system... :)

"I know you'll appreciate this even if it is stilted since its written by a bizarro lunatic:"
Get that man a "Know Nothing" Party membership card, 12 pounds of valium, and a login at PI...


Could someone point how the content found at that link is stilted. It's been a while since I took any govt/political science classes. The joke eludes some inkling of understanding but nothing completely crystal clear for me. Calling the author names and cracking jokes doesn't help me the casual liberal/republican/greeny uneducated poor downtrodden person to understand what these comments "really" mean.

:?:

I may have missed my own point since I wasn't looking to get into the question of who came up with this concept or whatever, I just wanted to present the dialectic/dualism idea. I only added the 'stitled' part to make sure no one took it as an invitation to discuss the politics of the material at the link, because at a minimum that seems like a lost cause.

Mike's also mentioned this a little bit when he talks about manufactured 50/50 splits on every issue.

"I know you'll appreciate this even if it is stilted since its written by a bizarro lunatic:"
Get that man a "Know Nothing" Party membership card, 12 pounds of valium, and a login at PI...


Could someone point how the content found at that link is stilted. It's been a while since I took any govt/political science classes. The joke eludes some inkling of understanding but nothing completely crystal clear for me. Calling the author names and cracking jokes doesn't help me the casual liberal/republican/greeny uneducated poor downtrodden person to understand what these comments "really" mean.

:?:

Sorry Muga... My friend, the Kid, was making fun of me for having studied philosophy as a martial art. The guy he linked to wouldn't recognize Hegel if he walked into his house and started gnawing on his leg.

"I know you'll appreciate this even if it is stilted since its written by a bizarro lunatic:"
Get that man a "Know Nothing" Party membership card, 12 pounds of valium, and a login at PI...


Could someone point how the content found at that link is stilted. It's been a while since I took any govt/political science classes. The joke eludes some inkling of understanding but nothing completely crystal clear for me. Calling the author names and cracking jokes doesn't help me the casual liberal/republican/greeny uneducated poor downtrodden person to understand what these comments "really" mean.

:?:

Sorry Muga... My friend, the Kid, was making fun of me for having studied philosophy as a martial art. The guy he linked to wouldn't recognize Hegel if he walked into his house and started gnawing on his leg.


BOOOOOO!!!! No letting everybody in on the in-joke, although I'm not quite sure if I see what you're saying about the idea of dualism as it pertains to the 'issues'

"I know you'll appreciate this even if it is stilted since its written by a bizarro lunatic:"
Get that man a "Know Nothing" Party membership card, 12 pounds of valium, and a login at PI...



:?:

I'll point you back to a thread at PI that you previously commented was very educational and covering this same matter - the false claim that thesis/antithesis is Hegelian:

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/d ... g_id=52493 (http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=52154&mesg_id=52493)

anaxarchos, pithily succinct and dazzlingly brilliant. this is a test of the emergency cognition system... :)

Thank you for that very high praise...

I still owe you one about Menshiviki too... perhaps after this board goes "public".

personality clashes, differing approaches to the same objectives, fear-mongering, deliberate sabotage, sexual politics, ostrization, marginalization, capitulation, false prophets, the lure of profits, popularity contests, hero worship and celebrity status, politically correct issues, demands for conformity in the call for unity, false rhetoric, new ageism & yuppie-centered values...



Solidarity?

BTW, how can one be a progressive independent and have an agenda that trumps all others?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... g_id=10913 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=10913&mesg_id=10913)
I had no idea that people at PI were such true believer Kucinich supporters going way back, and now I feel we were misled and abused. A core group at PI, it seems, was always secretly bent on steering us a certain direction and we were not aware of the hidden agenda.

Ironically, as with so many liberal issues the true believers actually set the cause back with their zealotry and intolerance. My estimation of Kucinich has plummeted. The importance of a politician is not his or her "stands on issues" - rather it is what effect they have - who they attract, what their followers are like, and what the people are able to do within the context that the politician creates. If the true believer Kucinich zealots have driven me away from him, imagine the effect they will have on the general population.

The problem is - and this is a chronic and pervasive problem with the liberals - is that as Kucinich's followers go, so goes Kucinich and as Kucinich goes, so goes the Left. In this way, the Kucinich followers greatly damage the Left.

... The importance of a politician is not his or her "stands on issues" - rather it is what effect they have - who they attract, what their followers are like, and what the people are able to do within the context that the politician creates.

This is very good, Mike, and it is suprisingly incomprehensible to many who define themselves as "left-wing". At the same time that you were getting bounced around on Kucinich, you put up a thread on Edwards. I was genuinely surprised at how few understood what you were getting at.

Let us say that Edwards is the most cynical of politicians, who is only playing the "class card" in order to compete against Clinton. Let us further stipulate that he would become a Mummer if he thought that it could get him elected president. What difference does it make?

How can it be bad for Edwards to raise the class issue explicitly when it hasn't really been done in Democratic politics since Henry Wallace?

Who is more important as a progressive candidate - Kucinich, who will orchestrate a tiny flame-out with a confusing litany of issues unknown to most people, or Edwards, who promises to raise our "issue", in a clear-cut way, even if he really, REALLY, doesn't mean it?

Don't get me wrong. Edwards has a good ways to go yet before it is indeed clear that he will run on class, but how is it possible to make him less important than a symbolic gesture?

http://media.kmeg14.com/images/John_edwards.jpg

Don't get me wrong. Edwards has a good ways to go yet before it is indeed clear that he will run on class, but how is it possible to make him less important than a symbolic gesture?

http://media.kmeg14.com/images/John_edwards.jpg

Shit I can't find it now but someone just made a post about "if you have good intentions, we criticize your results; if you get results we criticize your intentions".

Let us say that Edwards is the most cynical of politicians, who is only playing the "class card" in order to compete against Clinton. Let us further stipulate that he would become a Mummer if he thought that it could get him elected president. What difference does it make?

How can it be bad for Edwards to raise the class issue explicitly when it hasn't really been done in Democratic politics since Henry Wallace?

Who is more important as a progressive candidate - Kucinich, who will orchestrate a tiny flame-out with a confusing litany of issues unknown to most people, or Edwards, who promises to raise our "issue", in a clear-cut way, even if he really, REALLY, doesn't mean it?

Don't get me wrong. Edwards has a good ways to go yet before it is indeed clear that he will run on class, but how is it possible to make him less important than a symbolic gesture?
Exactly. Well stated.

If one is selecting a personality that is the ideal personal choice, as though purchasing a product, then the Edwards model may not have as many of the features one is looking for in a product as the Kucinich model does.

Consumer choices are based upon one's (imagined usually) personal needs. The method used for choosing a consumer product is notoriously bad when applied to other areas of life, such as selecting a spouse or a religion or a political candidate or “philosophy.” By reducing political choices to personal consumer choices, they are trivialized. By making external things mere reflections of your interior drama, you cut yourself off from reality. Things then will only have meaning in so far as they have utility in your personal fantasy world. This car makes me feel (or signals to others) that I am a sporty kinda guy, this candidate makes me feel (or signals to others) that I am compassionate kinda guy and don't think babies should be killed. If babies are still being killed, and should you point that out to the consumer of Kucinich, they can say “hey don't blame me. I voted for the 'no babies should be killed' candidate. That's just the kinda guy I am, don't you know. What kind of guy are you, by the way? A baby killer, or did you vote for Kucinich?”

Politicians are public servants and are representatives. Once in a while there is one who has the courage and the ability to take an unpopular stand on principle and persuade the public to his views, but that is rare and always will be. If a politician accurately represents the public – and most of these Democratic politicians perfectly represent the confusion and contradictions and moral depravity and expediency found in the liberal activist community – he is doing the job.

By talking about class, first and foremost, Edwards is doing something that is the best we can ever hope for from a politician. He is slightly ahead of the people (too far ahead will lead to failure) and talking about something that is not yet in people's imagination, but that he is confident could be if presented the right way and with the right timing. He is speaking in a way that will interest and engage the largest number of people, without pandering or triangulating. If the activists don't smash the shit out of him, and if the public starts responding to his message, it can be augmented and developed as time goes along. In any case, the very fact that he is saying it is very powerful. It can't be taken back. It is already working on people's imaginations.

Now, our job is not to decide whether or not Edwards is our personal beau ideal choice for grand poobah, messianic savior, and dictator of the known universe, or Hitler in sheep's clothing. Our job is to work with the little opening he gave us, and expand upon it. If he is a sincere person with integrity (not a static quality that we can pass judgment on, but rather something that will be discovered by him and by us as the challenges come up) and if his message is being promoted by us, momentum will build. His message is not, by the way - as so many activists assume - “hi I am John Edwards and you should vote for me.” Therefore running around “being” an Edward's supporter and selling and marketing him is nonsense. His message is “there are two Americas, the haves and the have nots, and this represents injustice, this is the most important thing, this is the root cause of our social problems, and it is getting worse and I am going to make my campaign about that.” That message will resonate with 60-70% of the people. Only the liberal activists could block it. Regardless of who or what Edwards “is” the message will have a life of its own separate from Edward's political career.

The message is more powerful the more places it is independently coming from. When we talk about the haves and the have nots, it has nothing to do with promoting Edwards. “I think we should have a more fair economic system” is strong. Add to that, with a starry eyed gaze “and that is my I am voting for the next president of the US – JOHN EDWARDS!!!” and the message loses all power. Talk to people about class, and they will figure out all on their own which candidate is also talking about class. Then we multiply the voices, we expand the influence and power of the message, we build momentum. Shoe-horning all of that into worship of a personality, and it is diminished and killed.

In fact, why praise Edwards at all to people? If they ask about him, say "well he is saying some of the right things, isn't he?" That creates pressure on the candidate to move further to the Left, since the person you are talking to about class starts from a position that we need to demand more from the candidate, not settle for less. It empowers the voter and makes them into an independent agent and voice.

When I was out promoting the Dems during the presidential campaign, people would say "oh so you are for Kerry?" I always said, God no he is awful isn't he? Any criticism they had of Kerry or the Dems couldn't hold a candle to the criticisms I had of them – I know where the bodies are buried in the Democratic party far better than any right wing hack does. Once we got the Dem bashing out of the way, which always ended with me being able to say what Kerry and the Dems should be doing, then we could get down to the business of how the Bush administration and the Republicans were destroying the country. Not all of those people voted Democratic, but damned few of them voted Republican after I was through with them, and all of them are ready to support FDR New Deal socialism.

The local Dem activists, all suburban carpet baggers and transplants, hated us because we bashed the shit out of the Dems and their favorite candidates. But we put the county in play for the first time in decades. “Rah rah Dems are great!” would not have brought that result – in fact, wherever the arrogant pushy true believer liberal activists canvassed they created a terrible backlash and damaged the cause.

Shit I can't find it now but someone just made a post about "if you have good intentions, we criticize your results; if you get results we criticize your intentions".
Mairead.