Do you think it's possible to have a heated discussion, without it becoming personal?

Not on here, although I usually bow out these days when I’m not getting through.

@janbb thanks for the honest answer.

I can tell almost immediately when my interlocutor and I are entrenched in our separate trenches. I always retreat or make a joke about the weather.

On the rare occasion that I allow myself to get drawn into a debate, if I find that my point is not getting across and I’m getting frustrated, I’ll usually suggest that we agree to disagree. If the interaction is taking place on the web, I may even just stop responding – I’m OK with not having the last word.

When engaged in a spirited debate, the thing to ALWAYS keep in mind is that objectivity (or the appearance of objectivity) is paramount. The first person to drop the discussion to accusations of character or personality defects in one’s opponent—- loses. It’s fine to deride your opponent’s argument as false or obtuse, if you can provide the evidence to back it up. But labeling your opponent flawed or obtuse is never permissible because it is tantamount to an admission that you have no better argument.

@gailcalled even when emotions are running high?
If you can good for you,I feel nothing is really accomplished when it gets personal.
It comes down to it I leave the person with their beliefs, but I have fallen into the personal trap before and not proud of it.

Excellent answer @stanleybmanly , I find if people dislike a question say here on Fluther,instead of personal attacks on the poster.
They will attack the question anyway they can,from punctuation,to clarity, and so on,and yet everyone else had no problem understanding it.

@SQUEEKY2: I never hang around long enough for my emotions to run high. Very bad for me and very unproductive.

Thanks for the answer, @hearkat

It is rare for me to sling personal insults at another, I’d say it has happened 2–3 times here in almost 5 years of participation. Not actual name calling, more like sharp retort.
I did tell the phantom goose fraud that was messing with me a few days ago to F-off.
It was a high quality F-off. haha

I’ve been involved in a couple of contentious but not personal discussions here on Fluther, so I know it can happen. It starts with the mutual recognition that reasonable and decent people can hold different views.

Sure, I’ve had friends with very different views. I had very conservative college roommate and I’m very liberal. We always went to the polls together on election day – “Let’s go cancel each other’s vote and then go out for breakfast.”

There is a great Youtube video I can’t find it. It’s all about objecting to what people say. You can attack the idea but not the person.

For example:
WRONG: You are a dumbass for believing in ghosts.
RIGHT: There isn’t any evidence for ghosts.

That wasn’t a great example, I wish I could find the video. The presenter is a black American man (not a celebrity, I think) and it is very effective.

I try to follow the advice. I used to be more contentious here on Fark, but we had some really great people who would steer the conversation on a better, more productive course.

Of course its possible, but only if you’re dealing with someone of equal intellect. Otherwise, the chances are you’ll be dragged into a tedious spat, unless you recognise very early on that this would be a complete waste of your time & energy.

Yes. It is. In real life, I have these discussions often. Also, this is the mode of communication in college. I had critical reasoning classes that were designed to identify and navigate logical fallacies, including ad hominem.

What I have found here most often (at least in the past) is that a legitimate, productive conversation will get going, and one of three things will happen:

- Someone will claim that an attack on their ideas = an attack on them personally.
– Someone will throw in the dreaded “I’m offended” card, resulting in a shift from the discussion of the topic to a meta discussion about the discussion itself.
– A third party will throw an “offended” card on behalf of someone who is engaged in the discussion. Often, this third party has not been involved in the discussion, and just ducks in to “keep things civil”. Conversation is over at this point.

But I have had discussions that have been decent for long stretches before the above 3 cancers have entered.

@SQUEEKY2: “I find if people dislike a question say here on Fluther,instead of personal attacks on the poster.
They will attack the question anyway they can,from punctuation,to clarity, and so on,and yet everyone else had no problem understanding it.”

I think you may have brought this up before, and I reject the premise. I’ve never seen people here dislike the content of a question but decide to attack the punctuation, etc instead.

@Coloma It appears that you’ve been vindicated in the great goose controversy, since all visible evidence of your rival in all of his or her incarnations has vanished. I remain unconvinced that the loss of the “impostor” is a benefit to this place. Whether the clever Fois Gras had it coming or not, she/it was funnier than shit (as long as it isn’t me being tormented) I know it’s easy for me to say that I wish you could have weathered the fraud. After all for all its glories, this place isn’t exactly famous for its surplus of wit.

Fluther introduced me to this, codified by our illustrious @SavoirFaire.

”Argumentum Verbosium : AKA Proof by Intimidation, or Proof by Verbosity. It refers to an argument that is so complex, so long-winded and so poorly presented by the arguer that you are obliged to accept it, simply to avoid being forced to sift through its minute details.”

@stanleybmanly Well…suffice it to say witticism is in the beak of the beholder.
“She/‘it” yes shit….my sentiments exactly!
Well..all’s well than ends well, may the lame duck land safely in another pond.
Gaggle on.

Yes, you can have a heated discussion with someone and not get personal but it is rare. Almost all heated discussions end up getting personal or way off the original subject. The going way off the subject seems to happen a lot when you are arguing with people you are close to and all kinds of unresolved issues pop up.

On Fluther, I routinely avoid getting into heated discussions after leaving one short comment and dropping off the thread—or simply ignoring the question altogether. Wish I’d learned to do that in my personal and work lives.

@Pachy So state your case bow out, and let all the others fight to the death.
I kinda like that.

If both sides are mature* enough, yes. The only exception may be religion. Unfortunately, religion is the reason for a variety of other opinions as well—abortion, sexuality, etc. This is because there really is no logic in religion, and what is an argument without logic? When that comes up, all I can do is hope that the opposition respects everyone else’s right to their own beliefs.
——————————————————————————————
*I really hate this word, but can’t think of another way to describe what I’m trying to say.

I avoid politics at all costs, except to say that I am liberally apolitical, now leave me alone. ;-p

I have observed, being a fan of personality and temperament theory, that feelers are much more irrational than thinkers. They employ emotional “reasoning” and can become very irrational when under pressure to examine the facts and logic of a situation.
I’m a woman but am a thinker by nature not a feeler. Thinkers can feel much better than feelers can think most of the time. lol

@SQUEEKY2, yup, that’s my style. I’ve found that “fighting” online, where there’s no way to see body language or hear nuance in speech is too often a silly waste of time an energy. Oh, and by the way, sometimes I prefer not even to “state my case.”

Wanna fight about it? Not I. ;-)

@Pachy nice answer, wish all these live by text talk freaks would read it, and think about it.

This strikes me as an oxymoron; if you didn’t take it personally, it never would’ve gotten heated in the first place.

It’s difficult for me to do so simply because most of the people I disagree with are of the opinion that things that I have lived through not only didn’t happen, but are impossible. Being told your life couldn’t happen, that everything you’ve ever experienced is false…. you really can’t get much more personal than that. Being chronically misinterpreted does come a close second though, especially when the misunderstandings reach a point where they must be intentional.

That said, I actually don’t like to start arguments, pretty much for that reason.

Wow, that didn’t really happen. Did it?

You can’t argue with a sick mind. Who said that anyway..some old rock band album I think?

@jerv Personal views aside, yeah I can see where your coming from when you lived through something and no one believes you.

@jerv I don’t think that applies to every heated discussion, though. I got into a heated discussion the other day with someone about political parties. We both had differing opinions, but no feelings were hurt and I certainly didn’t take it personally, meaning I didn’t feel like he was directing his thoughts at me. Perhaps the discussions I’m thinking of aren’t “heated” enough? (“Argumentum Verbosium”?) I’m sure if someone were to oppose my views on things like capitalism or gender, where I have much stronger feelings about, it’d be harder to oppose it without saying something that I’d take personally.
As I said earlier, it depends on the people. If they are easily offended by people saying things even if it’s not directed at them, or they’re hysterical or something, it’s going to be very difficult to have a non-personal discussion.

Of course. It takes appreciation of your opponent’s character. I’m lucky enough to have a few people in my life whom I respect enough to disagree with – passionately, but keeping it civil.

@dxs I’m generally laid-back enough that “heated” is nearly impossible for me unless I do feel attacked. However, like most people, there are times where attacking those like me is enough to trigger my defenses.

@dxs: I’ve found that some folks get heated not because they feel personally affronted by the position of their opponent, but rather because their sense of self-worth is very much wrapped up in “being right” (a.k.a. “superior”).

WOW @hearkat so spot on, most not all as you said are so wrapped up in their beliefs that they would rather die then admit they could be wrong.
GREAT ANSWER!!!

@hearkat Definitely. See any “argument” on Facebook.

@hearkat

For you

Classic, @jaytkay.

I can and do. I actually find it easier on here than in real life because here you do not get tone and inflection.

In real life, my motto is “The easiest way to piss me off is to try.”
Here on Fluther, the harder someone tries to piss me off, the calmer my responses get. Here, if you don’t rise to the bait, the text is there for all members to read and it’s fun to draw someone further and further into their own pool of instability.

@ibstubro That sounds a touch evil. :)

No, no, no, @SQUEEKY2.

My goal is to help people be the best that they can be!

:-D
live.evil

deleted by me

There is no question that when attacked my first reaction is to respond in kind. I’m still working on that and most times will simply not respond at all. It seems that a lot of people tell us that a personal attack means you’ve lost the argument. Frankly that is not the case. The truth is if you can discredit your opponent you discredit his argument.

Saul D. Alinsky Published his rules for radicals in 1971 and it has been used extensively. Rule # 5 states:

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.”

A common radical ploy.

@Jaxk Did you read @stanleybmanly answer if your reduced to attacking the person you have lost because you have nothing left to carry your view forward.
I fall into it from time to time as well,but at times no matter how right you are,the other person will never see it your way.

And I would rather not be considered a radical I will leave that title for the Republicans.

@SQUEEKY2 – The argument @stanleybmanly makes is good theory but not necessarily accurate. Think of all the people that say they hate negative advertising but yet it works. Look back at what y’all did to Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney for that matter. Ridicule is alive and well in liberal circles. The war on women, war on Hispanics, racist, sexist, homophobe, all ways to attack the person instead of the issue. You may want to consider yourself aloof, above the fray, but the world doesn’t work that way. If you look at what @hearkat said, it is a good example of how to discredit the person without addressing the issue. ‘You just want to be right so bad you won’t listen.’ That’s an argument that could be used at any time against anybody, for ant reason. No mention of the issue but you can walk away self-righteous and you immediately supported Hearkat’s point.

Rules for Radicals was a book written by a liberal, for liberals. It has been used by community organizers and virtually every protest group around. You can try to tie it to conservatives but but the facts belie you argument.

I’ve learned to just walk away.

@Jaxk Ridicule is alive and well in Conservative circles too. If you wish to discount those like the Birthers as radicals, then just look at Fox “News” (they are 50% more likely to fail fact-checking than MSNBC)… or even (on one of your bad days) in a mirror. You seem to often forget that that door swings both ways. For instance discrediting the source without addressing the issue; what do you think citing “Liberal bias” is? Of course, I feel that if a source is provably wrong more than 50% of the time, then calling their credibility into question is a legitimate tactic.

And yes, you’re half-right in that if you had to put Saul Alinsky on a one-dimensional Liberal-Conservative spectrum, he would definitely be on the Liberal side of the centerline. However, I don’t think that Liberals were his target audience; it seemed to be targeted at anyone who wanted to make a change. The fact that the Tea Party and FreedomWorks use it themselves belies the “for liberals’ half of that argument.

My example wasn’t about using one person’s drive to “be right” as a tactic in a debate, I was simply explaining how some people get emotionally involved with the debate itself, not so much with the topic being debated. I suppose people who are of a competitive nature and view debate as something to be ‘won’ are more inclined to fit that description.

That is why we moderators aren’t too keen on people considering the threads here as places for ‘debate’ but rather for discussion—exploring topics from various perspectives and keeping an open mind while doing so is what the founders were hoping for. You may recall that the Mod Team included a statement about controversial topics, debate threads and ridicule towards the end of the blog post we made a few months back. Of course that’s only here on Fluther, but I personally try to engage in civil discourse in other areas of my life, as well.

” provably wrong more than 50% of the time” Really? Sorry, I won’t be baited so easily, @jerv

@Jaxk Provably being the operative word there. That actually applies more to my discussions on technical matters where things truly are black-or-white. When it comes to politics or economics, there is often enough room for interpretation that indisputable proof is harder to find… except when someone makes a truly outrageous claim.
As an aside, I thought you might find this interesting.

@Jaxk I want to make this clear. Ridicule in a debate is fine. Ridicule of your opponent’s argument is fine. What is not (or rather should not be) allowed is ridicule of your opponent during the debate. It is next to impossible to write a sentence including the words Sarah Palin without a shovel load of ridicule, but I would instantly lose all respect for anyone standing on a stage debating her were they to spend the the opportunity pointing out her rather glaring defects. She is a special case, but nevertheless a brilliant illustration of my point. In her case, there’s no need to attack her personally in a debate for ANY reason. HER OWN WORDS will do a better job of proving your point than any possible insult you might hurl at her empty head. Moreover, it would be entirely too easy and far from a fair fight. Even Joe Biden realized this, and wisely laid off her during their debate. In a discussion, it’s the ARGUMENT that matters. You don’t call your opponent a knucklehead while arguing with her. You can say her argument is knuckleheaded, but you must then demonstrate persuasively why this is so. If you can achieve this——well then there is no need to point out that a knuckleheaded argument should in most cases fall out of a knucklehead.

GREAT ANSWER^^^^ @stanleybmanly Can’t see how anyone could argue with that liberal, or conservative, You can call the idea full of shit ,just stay away from telling the person they are full of shit,let them do that all on their own.

@stanleybmanly – You should be thanking me for giving you the opportunity to prattle on about Palin. I must however, take exception to your point. I don’t see how you can call someone’s argument stupid without implying that the person is stupid. You may point out the flaws in someone’s statements but if you call them ridiculous, that’s ridicule. I can’t remember too many times (if at all) criticism of Palin contained any actual critique of the issue. It is usually simple and typically mindless, ridicule.

@Jaxk Can you truly defend Palin, on anything?
All you have to do is really just listen to her,to realize what @stanleybmanly is saying is super true about her.
So your saying when you think Obama’s views and ideas are stupid or ridiculous,your calling him that as well?
Hmm, because when called on that very issue most conservatives quickly state that they don’t think Obama himself (the man) is stupid just his views and politics.Hmmm.

@SQUEEKY2 – Actually I like Palin. I wouldn’t vote for her but I do like her. As for Obama, when I call his views and ideas stupid, yes I do think he is stupid. I have no reason to pull my punches on that, He doesn’t learn from his own mistakes or from history. His single minded focus on his ideology shields him from any intelligent thought. IMHO

Palin is an idiot. If she was in the White House they’d be having keg parties and fist fights on the lawn.

Geeez @Dutchess_III I wish you and your husband lived closer, I would love to invite you guys out for coffee. :)

@Jaxk Do you like Palin because she is an attractive woman, or like her views and ideas?

@Jaxk Here is where we disagree. Brilliant people have bad ideas, and proffer faulty arguments all the time. The opposite, however is like snow in August in downtown Dallas. It’s clear that you do indeed like Palin, and your loyalty is commendable. But defending the proposition that she is not at best a profoundly ignorant woman requires skills you and I are unlikely to come across. Those who contend that she is somehow “normal” are either stretching the limits of their on credulity, or traveling in circles they should not admit to in public.

(Rather have beer @SQUEEKY2! I got nothin’ against keg parties, just fighting and being an ignorant redneck.)

@Dutchess_III

” If she was in the White House they’d be having keg parties and fist fights on the lawn.”

Seems like they’ve had a fistfight in the White House after the last fence jumper broke in. The secret Service took him down physically. And I recall a beer summit which I can only assume is Obama’s term for a kegger. If these are the things that define idiocy, we already have an idiot in the White House.

@SQUEEKY2 – I like her because she can give a good speech and generate excitement in the crowd. Unlike Obama, she doesn’t need a working teleprompter to get the job done.

@stanleybmanly – We will have to disagree. I’m not sure how the reference to ‘Brilliant People pertains to either one of the people we’re discussing.

We can disagree, but you’re one of the few conservatives here that we can depend on for a rational argument. We fight about a lot of things, but it really is tough to take you seriously when you start making comparisons between Sarah and Barack. So I don’t. I will concede that Obama has been a disappointment, but not for the reasons you state. Obama’s primary failing was in not recognizing his conservative opposition for what it was. He made the mistake common to academics, in believing conservative politics susceptible to rational considerations. After all, the 2 parties managed to govern together in the past. He waited around for them to reason. BIG mistake! He should have spent the last 6 years happily kicking the shit out of the bunch of them.

He did spend the last 6 years happily kicking the shit out of them. It seems a bit disingenuous to now complain they wouldn’t cave in to his demands. Personally I have found that when negotiating with someone that I need concessions from, it works a lot better if I don’t call them names while negotiating. Hell I even give them a few things that they want. Your experience may be different and that may explain why you think Obama should have done better.

No. Lyndon Johnson kicked. Obama sought to reason. From day one, when McConnell announced that the conservative agenda would consist of roadblocking EVERYTHING, Obama should have made their collective lives hell on earth.

@Jaxk Hitler could give a great speech and raised excitement in the crowd with out a teleprompter as well,does that make him right or good as well?

And personally Canadian, US, rightwing ,leftwing,politicians speeches are so full of shit I don’t care if they need a teleprompter or not. IMOP.

@Jaxk Bear in mind that you being willing to actually negotiate and do a little compromising is liberal enough to get you thrown out of the current iteration of the Republican party. In other words, you’re far more rational than most of the Congress-things that have an R after their name.

@SQUEEKY2 – I think you’re reading things into my comments that aren’t there. Right and/or good, isn’t there. I merely said I like her. We have finally reached the Hitler argument, I suppose it was inevitable. Nonetheless, getting a politician off the teleprompter at least gives you an opportunity to hear what they think rather than the speech writers thoughts. Obama has been informative in the few times he has been off the prompter.

@Jaxk Can you really blame him for using one,if he even blinks the wrong way everyone is bitching about it for months and months.
On or off the prompter I don’t believe anything a politicians says in his/her speech,they are all out for their own agenda,I just hope that doesn’t stomp the working man into the ground on the way.

@SQUEEKY2 – That’s pretty sad. I believe most of what they say with the exception of obvious conflicts. The biggest problem I have is that what they say they want, I DON“T WANT.

I’m sure that by this point we have proven this question one way or the other. Can anyone determine which way it went?

HEY! I never called you a Palin loving Republican throw the working man to the lions type guy once ,did I? :)

@Jaxk I’m confused about that myself….

This is just too funny!

^^ Hey @Dutchess_III you might find this amusing but ,please tell us which way you think it went.

I think it’s funny that the question “Do you think it’s possible to have a heated discussion, without it becoming personal?” turned into a heated discussion that became personal!

Can’t give an opinion because I didn’t really follow the conversation. I gotta go now. I’ll look through it when I get back.

@Dutchess_III: I don’t see this discussion as having been heated or personal—none of the comments have been flagged, even. I suppose there are subjective interpretations of what constitutes “heated” and “personal” to begin with, and that is why some people might get offended more easily than others.

Well, I may have misinterpreted because, as I said, I wasn’t following it that closely.

Solar heated discussion, or wood fired?

@ibstubro try coal it burns hotter.

I don’t care for the smell of coal fire, @SQUEEKY2.

Now I’m incensed!