Full Version: Reading a source before debating its content
Is it an ethical or good (or whatever the word should be) debate tactic to debate an author you have never read?
It has been quite obvious on several threads, namely the Noam Chomsky debate- that poeple were debating without ever having read a single complete work by the guy.
When I debate Ann Coltier- you can be sure I have read at least one of her books- even if it pains me to do so.
I read Newt Gingrichs book, I read one of Rush's, I read Al Franken etc.
Is it such a tough duty to read someone you are trying to make a point about?
It has been quite obvious on several threads, namely the Noam Chomsky debate- that poeple were debating without ever having read a single complete work by the guy.
When I debate Ann Coltier- you can be sure I have read at least one of her books- even if it pains me to do so.
I read Newt Gingrichs book, I read one of Rush's, I read Al Franken etc.
Is it such a tough duty to read someone you are trying to make a point about?
I don't think it is right to make a full judgment on a guy like Chomsky without reading his works and making the decision then. In the debate that you mentioned with Chomsky, I tried not to give a full opinion about him because honestly my knowledge of his positions and beliefs are limited. I simply commented that from my limited knowledge of those views that I did see an obvious disagreement. The topic even tempted me to purchase one of his books in Barnes and Nobles yesterday but I chose a couple others instead. Maybe on my next trip.
The thing is that there are two ways in which people think. There is peripheral root processing in which people have views based on what others have said or because someone important has said them (scientists, politicians, exc..). Then there are people with central root processing who assess the information for themselves and evaluate the facts through their own understanding and make a decision based on those conclusions. If you want to debate about a person or subject without having done even a little research or making an attempt to understand the material, then your true colors should show during the discussion.
The thing is that there are two ways in which people think. There is peripheral root processing in which people have views based on what others have said or because someone important has said them (scientists, politicians, exc..). Then there are people with central root processing who assess the information for themselves and evaluate the facts through their own understanding and make a decision based on those conclusions. If you want to debate about a person or subject without having done even a little research or making an attempt to understand the material, then your true colors should show during the discussion.
I have only read snippets of Chomsky's works, those posted on blogs and Zmag.org. I admit that I cannot adequatetly debate the merits of his writings, though I am not inclined to agree with the linguist. But despite that admission, the same seems to be true for many posters on other topics.
Not everbody is interested in, or has the time to read an entire book by an author, but we are all invited on
to add our thoughts on what we think about a subject.
Some of the recent comments concerning the actions of US troops in Iraq come to mind. Perhaps it is a experiential rather than a read perception, but many people take small portions of what they take in and extrapolate that into what they believe to be true. Lederuvdapac is correct, people come into many debates with preconceived notions
If only all of us debaters could retain an open mind and balance differing opinions, inlcuding myself, we could come closer to agreement on many issues.
Not everbody is interested in, or has the time to read an entire book by an author, but we are all invited on
to add our thoughts on what we think about a subject.Some of the recent comments concerning the actions of US troops in Iraq come to mind. Perhaps it is a experiential rather than a read perception, but many people take small portions of what they take in and extrapolate that into what they believe to be true. Lederuvdapac is correct, people come into many debates with preconceived notions
If only all of us debaters could retain an open mind and balance differing opinions, inlcuding myself, we could come closer to agreement on many issues.
DTOM- I hear you- but thre is a difference between debating a news source, and the variances in reporting a news item, and the actual, printed words of an author in a book
IS that an honest distinction in this case?
I would not debate Ann Coltier about her "snippets"- because it may be taken out of context (oh gawd, I wish it were out of context with her LOL)- so, I chose to read the whole book, gawdawful as it was.
So, while I will debate with you over a news items, with it's variances in reporting, but I would not, if you said "what do you think of this author" offer a meaningful debate if I had just read the back cover reviews- agreed?
IS that an honest distinction in this case?
I would not debate Ann Coltier about her "snippets"- because it may be taken out of context (oh gawd, I wish it were out of context with her LOL)- so, I chose to read the whole book, gawdawful as it was.
So, while I will debate with you over a news items, with it's variances in reporting, but I would not, if you said "what do you think of this author" offer a meaningful debate if I had just read the back cover reviews- agreed?
Is it an ethical or good (or whatever the word should be) debate tactic to debate an author you have never read?
I don't think it's unethical (unless one is pretending that one has read an author one hasn't), but it's certainly not good for one's credibility. And this would apply to more than debating specific authors. I'm certain, for example, that there are many who debate Islam without having read the Quran, Marxism without having read Das Kapital, and evolution wthout having read On the Origin of Species - not to mention any subsequent or complimentary texts on those subjects. Does this mean that they shouldn't debate those topics? No - but their opinions should be taken with a grain (or truckload) of salt.
Like CR, I have read Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Bernard Goldberg (as well as Barry Goldwater, Ayn Rand, John Stormer, and Russell Kirk), but I have not read John Maynard Keynes or Milton Friedman or Jude Wanniski - and only a little J.K. Galbraith and Thorstein Veblen. Therefore, I feel much more comfortable debating politics (and political commentary) than I do economics. That doesn't mean I avoid economic topics altogether, but I tend to feel at a bit of a disadvantage when I do. There are similar gaps in my reading of history. I know far more about the American War of Independence, for example, than I do about World War II. In general, I think it's a good idea not to express too strong an opinion on people, theories, events, or works about which one knows little or nothing first hand - or, indeed, to base one's opinion solely on secondary or tertiary sources. One can read book reviews as though they were books, but that does not mean one knows what one is talking about - and one's ignorance is often more apparent than one may imagine.
Then again, there are many people who have read, say, the US Constitution or the New Testament, yet still come off as totally ignorant of American government or Christianity. So even when one does do the research, one isn't automatically a credible authority...
I don't think it's unethical (unless one is pretending that one has read an author one hasn't), but it's certainly not good for one's credibility. And this would apply to more than debating specific authors. I'm certain, for example, that there are many who debate Islam without having read the Quran, Marxism without having read Das Kapital, and evolution wthout having read On the Origin of Species - not to mention any subsequent or complimentary texts on those subjects. Does this mean that they shouldn't debate those topics? No - but their opinions should be taken with a grain (or truckload) of salt.
Like CR, I have read Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Bernard Goldberg (as well as Barry Goldwater, Ayn Rand, John Stormer, and Russell Kirk), but I have not read John Maynard Keynes or Milton Friedman or Jude Wanniski - and only a little J.K. Galbraith and Thorstein Veblen. Therefore, I feel much more comfortable debating politics (and political commentary) than I do economics. That doesn't mean I avoid economic topics altogether, but I tend to feel at a bit of a disadvantage when I do. There are similar gaps in my reading of history. I know far more about the American War of Independence, for example, than I do about World War II. In general, I think it's a good idea not to express too strong an opinion on people, theories, events, or works about which one knows little or nothing first hand - or, indeed, to base one's opinion solely on secondary or tertiary sources. One can read book reviews as though they were books, but that does not mean one knows what one is talking about - and one's ignorance is often more apparent than one may imagine.
Then again, there are many people who have read, say, the US Constitution or the New Testament, yet still come off as totally ignorant of American government or Christianity. So even when one does do the research, one isn't automatically a credible authority...
I have not read anything by Ann Coulter. My days of masochistic reading ended with Ayn Rand! Coulter is a regular guest on talk shows. Last week she appeared on The Today Show, The Situation with Tucker Carlson, and god only knows where else.
Chomsky does not have the public profile of Coulter. To understand him, people should read him. I am comfortable debating Coulter's prolific public foaming at the mouth on TV.
If one has not read Chomsky, then debate on the Chomsky thread should have been limited to the video provided by lordhelmet and the transcript provided by nifty.
Chomsky does not have the public profile of Coulter. To understand him, people should read him. I am comfortable debating Coulter's prolific public foaming at the mouth on TV.
If one has not read Chomsky, then debate on the Chomsky thread should have been limited to the video provided by lordhelmet and the transcript provided by nifty.
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Is it an ethical or good (or whatever the word should be) debate tactic to debate an author you have never read?
...snip...
Is it such a tough duty to read someone you are trying to make a point about?
I think everyone has an obligation to study up before being so eager to speak out. Not to say that I am one of the best. I know I'm not. I tend to give opinions and back them up later. Maybe like many here do. It's not the worst thing in the world. On the other hand, it's a delight to read what others have to say that are truly knowledgeable about the topic.
I hesitated before posting this, and wonder further if I should bother, because I honestly don't want to seem intentionally inflammatory, but that Chomsky thread was one of the worst threads I've seen here. Ever. I may not post often, but I do lurk and read most everything. I don't post often because I stay out of what I don't feel that qualified to speak about. I'd rather just read and then go surf/research when I'm curious. I've learned a tremendous lot from this website that way. Super-duper-kudos to Mike and Jaime!
The initial post of the recent Chomsky thread was bait, for sure. In between the lines, it most certainly read, "is this Chomsky guy a scumbag or what?" And true to form, all the Chomsky-dislikers on the forum proceeded to answer THAT question, not the literal questions actually posted.
Recently there was a "what is an ad hominem?" thread. Forget about that. When I have to scroll past a 4,500 word essay (
) about what the person mentioned in the thread title said in 1960-or-1970-such-and-such (uses the 'search' function to find poster x's criticisms of Kissinger ... just as I suspected, ... none) I wonder if there should be a few little refreshers such as "what is an argument?" ... "did you answer the debate question?" ... "are you merely baiting people with your debate topics?" ... etc.QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 10 2006, 10:58 PM) 
Is it an ethical or good (or whatever the word should be) debate tactic to debate an author you have never read?
It has been quite obvious on several threads, namely the Noam Chomsky debate- that poeple were debating without ever having read a single complete work by the guy.
When I debate Ann Coltier- you can be sure I have read at least one of her books- even if it pains me to do so.
I read Newt Gingrichs book, I read one of Rush's, I read Al Franken etc.
Is it such a tough duty to read someone you are trying to make a point about?
Personally, I avoid making comments on things with which I have no knowledge. Other people have opinions on everything, regardless of any knowledge base. This is why I'm a fan of the Colbert Report. He plays the role to the hilt, and by doing so makes the point that a loud fool is just a fool with a voice, annoying and unenlightened.
I don't know anything about Chomsky, so here's my opinion on the man: 0000
However, I just might read something that he has written. He seems to annoy loud fools. Time to check the public library card catalog, eh?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.