Internet arguing follows the same logic. If I logically out-fence you by being an asshole, what have I gained? What have we gained?
Whereas if I politely and respectfully describe why eating Irish babies is a solution to overpopulation of the lower classes [0], we all feel better about ourselves, even if you decline to agree with me.
That's what the facts strongly suggest. Implying that people who use facts in argument are being rhetorical is - rhetorical itself.
The thing is, from a neutral external perspective, when one side claims "there is no climate change, only God's will" and the other side claims "Climate change is man-made and will escalate to the point of irreversibility if nothing is done", then only one side can back up their argument with verifiable facts. And yet, "listen to both sides!!!"-style arguments result in complete bullshit given the attention of millions of people.
Democratic discourse fundamentally needs facts to debate, not lies, propaganda or un-verifiable anecdotes. People who come to a democratic discourse without facts deserve no time of democratic people. Democracy itself is at war with disinformation from all kind of sources, both foreign (Russian and Chinese propaganda) and domestic (corporate or otherwise financially motivated shills, authoritarian politicians willing to grab power).
Sometimes it feels pretty lonely in the group of people that don't expect the near end of the world. Especially annoying in times when policy is often put forward in times of crisis. I don't mean Covid, the last decade was full of that.
You would think religious people and climate scientists could come together to proclaim that the end is nigh, sometimes you have to start at common positions...
Problem is that the both-sides perspective is more often correct than not. People will identify different facts and different instances of propaganda. Especially if said fact rely on nothing more than perfectly compiled statistics. Good ideas must prevail against opposition.
There is also an argument that states have problems to project power against multi billion $ companies, but the answer should certainly not be propaganda.
I disagree. If 95% of the people come to a discourse with no facts, and we follow this guideline, what kind of democracy is that?
IMO it is our responsibility in a democracy to listen and empathize with others, no matter how wrong they are. It is equally my responsibility to convince others, as it is for others to be convinced by reasonable arguments.
This is all notwithstanding the reality that what constitutes "fact" is not at all clear. In this kind of discourse, I place that word into the "thought-terminating cliche" category. Typically what is heralded as "fact" and "100% true" is much more nuanced with caveats, probabilities, normative assumptions, inferences, etc.
If there's no train of logic, no explanation, no underlying data, why are we pretending the individual is trying to engage in a honest discussion?
There is no arguing the authority of papal edicts with a devout papist, modern civilization long ago learned it was fruitless to try.
If someone trades in ungrounded declarations instead of propositions that one can attempt to "ground", there is no argument made and thus no "sides" to discuss.
Many people like to argue for the sake of arguing and it's a waste of time.
How fundamental? Where would you draw distinction (if at all)? So my brother is an anarchist, he is also a drug abuser that has spent time in jail and is a dangerous person to be around physically.
I have yet to ever see him argue in good faith.
He does not tell 99% of people that this is a what he believes, he just argues in person and online whatever can cause the most turmoil and/or positions that point to everyone being selfish and fundamentally evil, or the situation hopeless and that cruelty and power dynamics are not something that often "is", but something we "ought" to embrace.
In a democratic republic people "can" do a lot of things, just like the individual "can" do all kinds of things without dying or being jailed right away.
That doesn't mean they are healthy or good, that doesn't mean every ungrounded belief that exists needs to be engaged or given equal billing in public discourse. It's noise, not signal and if we are intelligent we will reject it as noise instead of rebroadcasting it. It also doesn't mean we ought to abandoned working towards a "grounded" consensus because rejecting factual evidence is somehow "virtuous" or cynically sophisticated.
Increasingly I see that people seem to argue as if rejecting a pragmatic, propositionally grounded and arguable discourse is something to give up on, or to stop advocating for, and I do question the intent behind that as it seems unsustainable and counter to past, evidentially productive, consensus building.
Seeing these arguments in the wild is to be expected when an increasing percentage of the population express a rejection of democracy itself in polls. On pluralistic open forums people/anarchists/my brother will argue orthogonally about how to "do democracy" while advocating positions that epistemologically undercut attempts at consensus, and they'll do this instead of saying "I reject democracy" because in many circles it's not in vogue _yet_ to say you've rejected democratic governance.
The idea that a majority of people in any country can fundamentally disagree that we live in a shared pragmatic reality, one that can be scrutinized, investigated, argued/communicated about and we will somehow still end up with sustainable democratic outcomes seems improbable, and I question anyone saying grounded arguments aren't that important.
I agree. Wholeheartedly. What falsehoods do you hold that keep you from participating in democracy then? Or are you saying that you, above everyone else, uses facts and logic only?
What have you voted for based on emotion?
How much of this is due not so much to some kind of fundamental similarity between their positions but rather to the virtually complete removal of rhetoric from the typical curriculum? Perhaps people argue like children because their thoughts are childlike, but perhaps they’re merely incompetent rhetoricians.