One of my favorite video games to play even today with my nephews is Smash Brothers. I played it back in college and it's a fun time to be had when playing even with inexperienced players. Choosing a stage in any fighting game is crucial and can give a certain player an advantage or disadvantage. Smaller stages can benefit players who prefer close combat fights while bigger stages will benefit a run away tactic. The idea is one player picks the stage and as long as both agree they're fighting on fair terms (no hazards) the results of the match should be accepted by both players without question.
I use this metaphor when talking about debating on issues as it draws how online debates often miss the idea. More recently, a woman online asked me on what basis I was against abortion (she basically asked me to pick the stage). I responded saying, "Biology!" Now, had I said some religious basis, my biases would've been questioned and I would agree wholeheartedly that religious basis alone should not form public policy.
As it stood, the basis on which I stood by my position was one she accepted and so it should've been so clear cut. She however goes on to talk about personhood which is a term used in Philosophy. A friend of hers then asked me to lay the Philosophical groundwork to establish that a fetus in the womb is a person. This is we had already agreed to talking in terms of biology and she wanted to put bring the debate to the realm of philosophy, a field I have little to no experience in.
So I insisted on staying on the decided "stage" but her friend pointed out that I couldn't possibly be using solely biology to prove my point and they continue to talk about personhood and if the fetus should be afforded personhood. The idea of a person belongs to the realm of philosophy. This little exchange actually told me that my position was defensible and rational from the perspective of biology. When they wished to change the battlefield (as it were), they were actually conceding that their own position wasn't defensible through the lens of biology. But which lens should we look at certain issues through? Is biology somehow superior to philosophy or vice versa?
Being in the Debate Society back in my high school years, my teacher and good friend mentioned something I didn’t quite understand back then. He told us about bias and how it forms our arguments. People always say they want an “unbiased” opinion but such does not exist as all people will have a certain bias.
I use this metaphor when talking about debating on issues as it draws how online debates often miss the idea. More recently, a woman online asked me on what basis I was against abortion (she basically asked me to pick the stage). I responded saying, "Biology!" Now, had I said some religious basis, my biases would've been questioned and I would agree wholeheartedly that religious basis alone should not form public policy.
As it stood, the basis on which I stood by my position was one she accepted and so it should've been so clear cut. She however goes on to talk about personhood which is a term used in Philosophy. A friend of hers then asked me to lay the Philosophical groundwork to establish that a fetus in the womb is a person. This is we had already agreed to talking in terms of biology and she wanted to put bring the debate to the realm of philosophy, a field I have little to no experience in.
So I insisted on staying on the decided "stage" but her friend pointed out that I couldn't possibly be using solely biology to prove my point and they continue to talk about personhood and if the fetus should be afforded personhood. The idea of a person belongs to the realm of philosophy. This little exchange actually told me that my position was defensible and rational from the perspective of biology. When they wished to change the battlefield (as it were), they were actually conceding that their own position wasn't defensible through the lens of biology. But which lens should we look at certain issues through? Is biology somehow superior to philosophy or vice versa?
Being in the Debate Society back in my high school years, my teacher and good friend mentioned something I didn’t quite understand back then. He told us about bias and how it forms our arguments. People always say they want an “unbiased” opinion but such does not exist as all people will have a certain bias.
I saw it more clearly when I started questioning my own beliefs. I realized I always leaned towards Church teaching on many issues so when engaging with people who don’t have the same bias as I do, we end up clashing and not agreeing at all on anything! So I decided that for moral issues, I would not support the church’s teachings if it could not be supported on a bases other than divine law.
This is how I treat certain forms of debate whether online or face to face. If your position is worth defending, it should be defensible under any microscope. I do this mainly for moral questions. Going back to the earlier discussion on abortion, the pro-life position should be defensible from a philosophical or a scientific angle. I'd agree that we would have to settle the personhood issue eventually.
However, when doing debates and you let someone else choose the battlefield, stick to the chosen battlefield and avoid straying from the agreed upon bias. What happens when you don't is the two parties will almost never agree on absolutely anything as they're looking through totally different lenses.
However, when doing debates and you let someone else choose the battlefield, stick to the chosen battlefield and avoid straying from the agreed upon bias. What happens when you don't is the two parties will almost never agree on absolutely anything as they're looking through totally different lenses.
No comments:
Post a Comment