Nature of Debates!

[luke wilson]

I sometimes tend to get into debates with acouple of my housemates and usually at the end of them, either I or whoever I was debating with is left exhausted and the other triumphant. As many types of debates that we have dont have a definate clearcut answer, like a black and white, yes or no, this is right, that is wrong type of answer in which case it would be pointless debating, one would just have to look it up, I find that the debate goes into a feeding frenzy. I was wondering if there was any way in which someone can debate or talk about a 'controversial' issue with someone without it ending up in a feeding frenzy - where it becomes less about learning and more about scoring points???

Also whilst you are engaged in one of this heated talks and you notice that infact you are the one being fed on, how does one walk away from that? I find that you want to stay locked into the talk to desperately try and recover that lost energy. Obviously at the time you're not thinking about any lost energy but how you can rescue yourself from such a debate, walk away with something as compared to nothing.

Like today, for the first time, I had a debate with a housemate and at the end of it I felt kind of empowered, victorious but I noticed he seemed exhausted and tired so I thought, hmm I might have been feeding on him without him knowing - usually I am the one that goes away having gotten a good kicking especially as there are things about me that always get used against me so I cannot even express my view without any kind of subjective judgement. This time however, I learnt how he counters my points and I came prepared. I dont know, our debates tend to engage emotions because people try and defend there point of view, no point is given for surrendering your position. Atleast not in my environment, you surrender equals your food.

So in short, is there any way to block yourself from being fed on or for you to not feed on other people. How can one do this especially when emotions get involved and the heat of the moment takes over? Lately I have found that by simply dis-engaging my emotions whilst in a heated topic means I walk away relatively Ok, even if I lost and was being attempted to be feasted on by a host of people. Uhmm, I have noticed aswell that people expect you to react in a certain way whilst you're losing(eg try and desperately save your perceived lose or get all emotional) and if you dont they get agitated almost as if you're being a non-compliant meal and thus it becomes about getting you into a position of compliance.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I was wondering if there was any way in which someone can debate or talk about a 'controversial' issue with someone without it ending up in a feeding frenzy - where it becomes less about learning and more about scoring points???

Jacob Needleman gives a good exercise in this talk of his: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcpQr9ohaww

Basically, the idea is for each person to state their point of view. During this, the other person must listen. Then, before giving their own view, they must relate back, as accurately as possible, the OTHER person's view. They can't state their own UNTIL the other person says, "Yes, that's what I'm saying." Only at that point, the other person shares what they think. Then the first person has to do the same. As he points out, usually you'll still disagree with the other person, but you won't be feeling as drained, because you are listening, putting yourself in the other person's shoes, and not simply trying to "win" an argument.

Also whilst you are engaged in one of this heated talks and you notice that infact you are the one being fed on, how does one walk away from that? I find that you want to stay locked into the talk to desperately try and recover that lost energy. Obviously at the time you're not thinking about any lost energy but how you can rescue yourself from such a debate, walk away with something as compared to nothing.

I think it's important to first of all ask the question if you are not feeding, as well. In a "debate", usually both sides are feeding, attempting to "win the other person over", and frustrated that they don't see it YOUR way. That's not communication. However, if you find yourself in that situation, it's a good opportunity to practice external consideration. Try to see what they're saying, don't try to change their mind, maybe even say, "Yeah, I see your point. I don't see things the same way, but I understand your perspective." Often our self-importance is what is really challenged in such scenarios. And if you simply don't have the time, you can always say you enjoy talking things over, but you'll have to continue the conversation another time.

So in short, is there any way to block yourself from being fed on or for you to not feed on other people. How can one do this especially when emotions get involved and the heat of the moment takes over? Lately I have found that by simply dis-engaging my emotions whilst in a heated topic means I walk away relatively Ok, even if I lost and was being attempted to be feasted on by a host of people. Uhmm, I have noticed aswell that people expect you to react in a certain way whilst you're losing(eg try and desperately save your perceived lose or get all emotional) and if you dont they get agitated almost as if you're being a non-compliant meal and thus it becomes about getting you into a position of compliance.

It might help to stop thinking of it in terms of "winning" or "losing". See it as an opportunity to question your own beliefs. Do you really "believe" something because you know about the subject, or is it just an emotionally inspired belief that hasn't been thought through? You have nothing to lose except your illusions in such a situation, OSIT. And if the other person happens to be more obstinate, be considerate and try to get them to really make a good case, ask a few probing questions, but don't let your own self-importance make it a "fight".

 

[Stevie Argyl]

For an experiment say ' you know, you might be right, let me think about that'

for another experiment say' you know, you might be right , in fact we might both be right but seeing different sides'

Having to be right leaves you exhausted.
Saying your piece and leaving the other free to agree or disagree leaves you free too.
Letting someone know they might be right even though you might not necessarily believe that they are right is good practice at defeating your own attachment to rightness, choose what issues are appropriate ie, you dont say, 'yes you're right a nuclear dump in my back yard is a good idea' but you might say ' yeah you are right, sometimes I am defensive/aloof/ a smart ass'.

 

[Stevie Argyl]

Approaching Infinity just posted as I was posting and their advice is spot on. I havent read needleman but the example he gives seems to be similar to NVC, do a search for Non Violent Communication.

 

[Buddy]

I was wondering if there was any way in which someone can debate or talk about a 'controversial' issue with someone without it ending up in a feeding frenzy - where it becomes less about learning and more about scoring points???

I think everyone has good ideas, but it appears to me that in order to fulfill the requirements that you describe, you will need to have a 'debate' partner who understands that the subject is a debate and is agreeable to clearly spelled out rules for the process.

What you described sounded like 'feeding' to me because the people involved have some of themselves invested in their 'side'. Agreeing to rules beforehand could help with some detachment, osit, otherwise, it seems like the burden on you to try and maintain all the objectivity would be enormous.

 

[luke wilson]

Thanks for the advise guys.

As he points out, usually you'll still disagree with the other person, but you won't be feeling as drained, because you are listening, putting yourself in the other person's shoes, and not simply trying to "win" an argument.

I will try and apply this. For me, when it's really in the heat of the moment, it becomes about winning the argument. I also never put myself in the other persons shoes... Infact I usually wait for my turn to speak without even listening to what the other person is saying. I have had many people tell me that I am a bad listener. How do I practise external considering?? Do i just listen and try and think and see what they are saying? Try and see why they think what they are saying is right without relating this to what I think should be what they are saying??

Try to see what they're saying, don't try to change their mind, maybe even say, "Yeah, I see your point. I don't see things the same way, but I understand your perspective." Often our self-importance is what is really challenged in such scenarios. And if you simply don't have the time, you can always say you enjoy talking things over, but you'll have to continue the conversation another time.

Hmm, how to not try and change there mind, this is hard. Especially seeing as it is somekind of struggle to reach some consensus. I agree that self-importance is what is challenged. For me personally, I think my self-importance is very very subtle, I assume it is there but I rarely ever see it. The reason I dont give up during such debates or persist when I should stop I dont think is about preserving my self-importance, it's just that this has become mechanical to me and I dont know when or how to stop. Infact sometimes I feel like I cannot stop, I feel like I have invested so much that I need to persist for as long as possible, some of the debates I have had have lasted hours, wasted a whole day talking about something and hardly getting anywhere.

It might help to stop thinking of it in terms of "winning" or "losing".

Oh this is very hard especially when there are prices attached to either winning or losing. Maybe they are just perceived prices, maybe it is the self-importance/ego saying dont give up, dont lose, keep going keep going.. Hmmm, I dont know it's very hard to really understand what is going on within oneself. I think I need a plan of action.

-debate starts
-try to see what the other person is saying, put yourself in there position. DONT make it about winning and preserving the ego.
-Accept to have ones own beliefs questioned and challenged whether rightly or wrongly. Dont make this into a game for the ego.
-End debate. Dont spend hours going round in circles.

I'll try this next time I find myself in a heated discussion.

What you described sounded like 'feeding' to me because the people involved have some of themselves invested in their 'side'. Agreeing to rules beforehand could help with some detachment, osit, otherwise, it seems like the burden on you to try and maintain all the objectivity would be enormous.

Oh, what makes it exceptionally hard is that there are no rules. There can never be rules, rules for what? The people I debate with dont care about rules, they just want to talk... The only rules are the accepted social rules of not being rude, offensive(atleast not outwardly so) and aggressive. Otherwise, it's a completely open situation that is why it sometimes can get quite hard to practise external considering or even bother listening to what the other person is saying as the debate simply gets reduced to, I am right, You are wrong, I dont care what you say, infact I wont even bother trying to listen to you anymore, i'll just wait my turn and try and convert you to my way of thinking then. This is clearly a detrimental state of affairs, going to have to apply alot of work, maybe some lessons can be learnt.

Come to think of it, I know why I act so mechanically when I debate now. I always feel like I am draining myself and I dont stop until I am empty, this can be hours later - the more heated/involved the discussion is, the higher the drainage. I dont know draining of what, but I gladly do it. Infact, this is why I seek controvesy in discussions. I tend to steer well clear of discussions that are not controversial/heated/involved in everyday life - I find them to be mind-numbing, this may also explain my lack of female friends, they like people who agree and relate to/with them almost all the time, I do the opposite almost automatically and when I try to agree and relate it doesnt sound genuine and I feel not myself. It is weird, like today, when I had that debate with my housemate and actually came out feeling empowered and victorious, I felt bad(so much so that I felt and acted upon the need to start this topic). But the many times I have come out feeling the opposite, I felt good.. Sure I feel abit exhausted for acouple of minutes but then I get back to feeling normal pretty quick. It's weird it's like upside down, it is meant to be the other way round!! Infact, if it is in a large group I am almost always the centre of attention. I tend to be the controversial one, to bring the controversy into the discussion then to proceed to do battle with everyone. Infact my housemate has noticed this and nowadays he stops some of the discussions before they even start when he notices or thinks I am looking for a debate. Omg, infact I rarely care about winning or losing - it's not as if my public image is not at rock bottom - I have nuthing left to preserve(that is why I said my self-importance/ego must be one very subtle thing because it is not acting the way it should), it's just about the 'heat' as it were - I try and get the right kind of heat. I do tend to lose alot but I do tend to leave an impression, maybe not the kind of impression one should seek to leave, just being way out there it's almost like you're on your own personal island.

 

[Buddy]

If that's the case, then it's not really debate, luke. In the interests of objectivity and honesty, you should, perhaps, call it what it is - feeding. At the very least, it sounds like your brain chemistry is highly involved and that's how you get your 'high'.

My 2 cents. If I am in error, please feel free to correct me. I'm not trying to be offensive. :)

 

[Approaching Infinity]

How do I practise external considering?? Do i just listen and try and think and see what they are saying? Try and see why they think what they are saying is right without relating this to what I think should be what they are saying??

Start by just listening well enough to be able to say back THEIR position. That'll be a big enough challenge to start off with.

Hmm, how to not try and change there mind, this is hard. Especially seeing as it is somekind of struggle to reach some consensus. I agree that self-importance is what is challenged. For me personally, I think my self-importance is very very subtle, I assume it is there but I rarely ever see it. The reason I dont give up during such debates or persist when I should stop I dont think is about preserving my self-importance, it's just that this has become mechanical to me and I dont know when or how to stop. Infact sometimes I feel like I cannot stop, I feel like I have invested so much that I need to persist for as long as possible, some of the debates I have had have lasted hours, wasted a whole day talking about something and hardly getting anywhere.

Funny how our self-importance can be so obvious to others, and yet we still don't see it, huh? Perhaps it'll help to make it a goal to tell yourself during your next "debate" that "I'm not going to try to change their mind. I'm going to try to understand why they think the way they do."

-debate starts
-try to see what the other person is saying, put yourself in there position. DONT make it about winning and preserving the ego.
-Accept to have ones own beliefs questioned and challenged whether rightly or wrongly. Dont make this into a game for the ego.
-End debate. Dont spend hours going round in circles.

Sounds like a good start!

Oh, what makes it exceptionally hard is that there are no rules. There can never be rules, rules for what? The people I debate with dont care about rules, they just want to talk... The only rules are the accepted social rules of not being rude, offensive(atleast not outwardly so) and aggressive. Otherwise, it's a completely open situation that is why it sometimes can get quite hard to practise external considering or even bother listening to what the other person is saying as the debate simply gets reduced to, I am right, You are wrong, I dont care what you say, infact I wont even bother trying to listen to you anymore, i'll just wait my turn and try and convert you to my way of thinking then. This is clearly a detrimental state of affairs, going to have to apply alot of work, maybe some lessons can be learnt.

So make it your personal goal to follow your own rules. See it as an experiment. Try to understand them, even if they're not trying to do the same. It doesn't matter what they think, or if they don't change. In such a situation, YOU are the one trying to work on yourself, and every interaction is an opportunity to do so.

It is weird, like today, when I had that debate with my housemate and actually came out feeling empowered and victorious, I felt bad(so much so that I felt and acted upon the need to start this topic).

So perhaps there is a part of you that sees the dynamic, and how it is unhealthy for you. Now you can try to grow that part.

 

[bjorb]

- Hey luke wilson, maybe this can help:


I once asked myself, how do you reach people, How do you make them aware of certain situations. I thought that there was only one answer to that: Trying to show others how a situation is, as it is. And what those consequences are.

But than I noticed that most people practice the opposite. Being it to be Judgmental. To hurt those who disagree, to attack them. – And so reacted the ‘opposition’

I didn’t understand the reason of it, because behaving like that doesn’t resolve at coming at its best conclusion, which is based on the available information.

But nonetheless that’s how everybody seemed to behave, which is being judgmental at each other. Than I concluded that being judgmental does not serve objectivity.

And with that I recognized the difference between: Observing & or being Judgmental.

And also what it means to be sincere.

Attacking others will only result in them attacking you. – And with that all objectivity will be lost. – The result of being Judgmental.

To be sincere and truly spread awareness – you have to be observing.

And that’s how I continued, I tried to show others what mine observation concluded. Some personally attacked me. – to them I explained them that being judgmental does not serve objectivity.
And without that no proper conclusion can be formed.

I responded that if they where sincere, and truly care about the situation, to what is truly happening, and to form a conclusion based on the available situation. Our aim must be of an observing kind.

I always ended that mine response towards them was based on observation not a personal attack.

I noticed that most people who acted judgmental leaved the discussions. Some stayed. And the smallest part of them even apologized. Ultimately those discussions went decent and kind. – Even if people kept disagreeing at each other.

I shortly began to realize that to create awareness, one must let go at being judgmental.

Than I really realized that being judgmental does not serve objectivity at all.

So I asked myself, who does it than? Why do we judge others? If it doesn’t help in creating awareness.

Isn’t it odd? That we judge others? When it only seems to divide people. - To chance the world… We need awareness. And we create that by trying to make other people aware.
To show them what we concluded. To be open for those who disagree. If we judge others. we shut down the door. Which will block awareness of it’s possibilities to spread.

So I asked myself again. Who does it serve if you act judgmental!?

It's Ego. And Ego blocks objectivity.


- so, try Recognize the difference between being Observing & Judgmental And try to practice the observing one: Because it's the only who is sincere and actually cares about the truth in a situation. I hope that 'attitude' can assist in you in those debates. - and of course in practicing 'the work'

 

[luke wilson]

If that's the case, then it's not really debate, luke. In the interests of objectivity and honesty, you should, perhaps, call it what it is - feeding. At the very least, it sounds like your brain chemistry is highly involved and that's how you get your 'high'.

My 2 cents. If I am in error, please feel free to correct me. I'm not trying to be offensive.

Yes, I agree it is feeding. Alot of energy going back and forth. This so called discussions hardly ever achieve any sort of objectivity, so yah I think you are right with your assessment Bud. The thing I dont know is if I am the one primarily who is doing the feeding and this is my predators mind chosen way of getting its 'high.' I dont think I should even put the blame on the predators mind here. There is complicity from my real part - at the end of the day, the predators mind doesnt actually force me to do anything, it's just like a little tiny devil on ones shoulder leading one down specific paths.

I have really tried to see it. To notice it. They say it imitates you thus making you think it is you and you are it - that is a quote I got from the movie revolver( watch this extract from the directors cut on acouple of people talking about the ego http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d0vtFja9GE&feature=player_embedded#!). If it is such a good imitator of oneself that one see's the ego and thinks it is him then how can you start dealing with it. I have been reading the wave, I am about a 1/3rd of the way through - took acouple of days off as I had other things I had to do, I have also been reading threads on here about it and what Gudjierff and that Castaneda person had to say about it. What I get from the reading is the knowledge that it is there but very little practical ways of dealing with it effectively. I try and do the opposite of what I think is good for the ego, like I try and not act on negative emotions, If somebody says something bad to me, if I feel annoyed I try to not externalise it. Sometimes, yes I use debates to rub people up in a specific way, so as to get them to essentially attack me so I can get practise on how to deal with my ego. When people enmasse make fun of you and say things about you then the ego does really feel it. Maybe it is selfish on my part to essentially use other people to try and smoke my ego out without them knowing so - I have learnt not to do this in an obvious way and I have learnt that inorder to get to the ego's chore you have to get people to really really judge you and have this judgement influence how they treat you, the ego doesnt like being judged. :(

But nonetheless that’s how everybody seemed to behave, which is being judgmental at each other. Than I concluded that being judgmental does not serve objectivity.

I agree people are very judgemental. There are alot of judgements cast and this does hinder objectivity. I feel annoyed when I am talking with someone and what is primarily influencing how they relate to me, is there judgement of me. How can we get any level of objectivity as a result??? It is exceptionally hard and people dont want to look beyond there judgements. When I am in a talk and I notice someone doing this, I dont usually try and extinguish there judgement of me, I make it bigger in the hope that one day they will notice this 'judgement' and in the process I can learn to deal with being judged. I think it is wrong to judge. Do I judge?? Hmm this is harder to answer, it is hard to notice things within oneself, I'd say I dont primarily base my interactions with other people with my judgement of them eventhough sometimes I can be abit prejudicial but this is usually when I meet someone for the first time and I dont know them, you try and put people in specific boxes before you really know them - the trick is not acting on this prejudices, sometimes it is impossible not to be prejuducial as society has many stereotypes and so forth which are instilled onto you.

I think this area of my life offers the biggest opportunity to do some real work and learn. A good place to put into practise elements of the work. I hope to rise up to the challenge. I say hope because I am not entirely confident in my ability to practise the work atleast on a conscious level.

 

[Stevie Argyl]

!

A good place to put into practise elements of the work. I hope to rise up to the challenge. I say hope because I am not entirely confident in my ability to practise the work atleast on a conscious level

suggestion - Prepare !

sit 30 minutes in silence, just breathing, then decide that today you will consciously enter into debate without losing yourself and that your aim is a detached observation of your machine. You may not succeed first time but set aside time first thing in the morning to prepare your aim for that day.

 

[Guardian]

I was wondering if there was any way in which someone can debate or talk about a 'controversial' issue with someone without it ending up in a feeding frenzy - where it becomes less about learning and more about scoring points???

I look for the common ground FIRST, then work backwards from there. Find the points where your opinions begin to diverge after you've established what you agree on. Try assigning maximum importance to the values you share, and make your differences less significant then your commonalities.

That said, I've found a large number of heated debates are actually people arguing over who picked the best definition for a particular word or two.

 

[Bernhard]

I was wondering if there was any way in which someone can debate or talk about a 'controversial' issue with someone without it ending up in a feeding frenzy - where it becomes less about learning and more about scoring points???

Jacob Needleman gives a good exercise in this talk of his: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcpQr9ohaww

Basically, the idea is for each person to state their point of view. During this, the other person must listen. Then, before giving their own view, they must relate back, as accurately as possible, the OTHER person's view. They can't state their own UNTIL the other person says, "Yes, that's what I'm saying." Only at that point, the other person shares what they think. Then the first person has to do the same. As he points out, usually you'll still disagree with the other person, but you won't be feeling as drained, because you are listening, putting yourself in the other person's shoes, and not simply trying to "win" an argument.

Also whilst you are engaged in one of this heated talks and you notice that infact you are the one being fed on, how does one walk away from that? I find that you want to stay locked into the talk to desperately try and recover that lost energy. Obviously at the time you're not thinking about any lost energy but how you can rescue yourself from such a debate, walk away with something as compared to nothing.

I think it's important to first of all ask the question if you are not feeding, as well. In a "debate", usually both sides are feeding, attempting to "win the other person over", and frustrated that they don't see it YOUR way. That's not communication. However, if you find yourself in that situation, it's a good opportunity to practice external consideration. Try to see what they're saying, don't try to change their mind, maybe even say, "Yeah, I see your point. I don't see things the same way, but I understand your perspective." Often our self-importance is what is really challenged in such scenarios. And if you simply don't have the time, you can always say you enjoy talking things over, but you'll have to continue the conversation another time.

So in short, is there any way to block yourself from being fed on or for you to not feed on other people. How can one do this especially when emotions get involved and the heat of the moment takes over? Lately I have found that by simply dis-engaging my emotions whilst in a heated topic means I walk away relatively Ok, even if I lost and was being attempted to be feasted on by a host of people. Uhmm, I have noticed aswell that people expect you to react in a certain way whilst you're losing(eg try and desperately save your perceived lose or get all emotional) and if you dont they get agitated almost as if you're being a non-compliant meal and thus it becomes about getting you into a position of compliance.

It might help to stop thinking of it in terms of "winning" or "losing". See it as an opportunity to question your own beliefs. Do you really "believe" something because you know about the subject, or is it just an emotionally inspired belief that hasn't been thought through? You have nothing to lose except your illusions in such a situation, OSIT. And if the other person happens to be more obstinate, be considerate and try to get them to really make a good case, ask a few probing questions, but don't let your own self-importance make it a "fight".

Thank you AI. The lecture by Jacob Needleman is great! :)

 

[truth seeker]

Sometimes, yes I use debates to rub people up in a specific way, so as to get them to essentially attack me so I can get practise on how to deal with my ego. When people enmasse make fun of you and say things about you then the ego does really feel it. Maybe it is selfish on my part to essentially use other people to try and smoke my ego out without them knowing so - I have learnt not to do this in an obvious way and I have learnt that inorder to get to the ego's chore you have to get people to really really judge you and have this judgement influence how they treat you, the ego doesnt like being judged.

Do you think it's okay to use someone? The reason I'm asking you is in the interest of giving you the opportunity to really look at what may be behind this, not as a judgement. :)

. I feel annoyed when I am talking with someone and what is primarily influencing how they relate to me, is there judgement of me.

Perhaps another way to view it is that you perceive they are judging you. Do you judge yourself?

edit: clarification

 

[Gertrudes]

Hi luke,

Sometimes, yes I use debates to rub people up in a specific way, so as to get them to essentially attack me so I can get practise on how to deal with my ego. When people enmasse make fun of you and say things about you then the ego does really feel it. Maybe it is selfish on my part to essentially use other people to try and smoke my ego out without them knowing so - I have learnt not to do this in an obvious way and I have learnt that inorder to get to the ego's chore you have to get people to really really judge you and have this judgement influence how they treat you, the ego doesnt like being judged.

Do you think it's okay to use someone? The reason I'm asking you is in the interest of giving you the opportunity to really look at what may be behind this, not as a judgement. :)

. I feel annoyed when I am talking with someone and what is primarily influencing how they relate to me, is there judgement of me.

Perhaps another way to view it is that you perceive they are judging you. Do you judge yourself?

edit: clarification

Fwiw, I had the exact same thoughts.

I think that before entering a debate it would be worth to ask, what do I really, really want from it? And this question might require more then just a moment before you get to the bottom of it.

I agree that many debates can turn into a feeding feast. However, I also think that one's attitude can attract a similar one in others, as in, if I'm looking to win the debate and prove my point despite anything that is said, the ones involved in the debate will tend to react accordingly. Bjorn said something very similar:

Attacking others will only result in them attacking you. – And with that all objectivity will be lost. – The result of being Judgmental.

On the other hand if I am genuinely wishing to know the truth, despite my previous views on the subject, others are more likely to tend to react similarly. In this last situation, it will be incomparably easier to change point of view without hurting one's ego, because the need for debate won't originate from one's ego, it will come from a deeper need.

My 2 cents :)