Should we debate with the enemy?

From Wikidebates
Pros and cons of adversarial debate
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Balance of reason weighing pros and cons
This article aims to expose all the pros and cons of the debate “Should we debate with the enemy?”, to allow everyone to form a critical and informed opinion.
Searchtool.svg
 Further reading: Founding Principles
Hammer symbolizing construction
This debate is under construction
The debates under construction are the debates that contain at least:
  • a coherent plan;
  • the most well-known “for” and “against” arguments;
  • a beginning of writing.
Unlike constructed debates, it may lack: arguments, justifications, objections; an accomplished introduction, an adequate bibliography, webliography or videography.
. Arguments are missing or not written. The introduction and bibliography need improvement.
Feel free to complete them.
PROS
Argument forIt's important to try and convince your opponents, even the worst ones.
Argument forDebating with the enemy is the best way to fight his ideas
Argument forDebating with the enemy allows us to progress
Argument forDebating with one's enemies is an ethical obligation, the opposite of discrimination.
Argument forDebating with the enemy helps prevent violence
Argument forOne must debate with one's enemies under appropriate conditions
Argument forTo counter the enemy, you have to know him
Argument forTo refuse to debate the enemy is to wallow in entrenchment and dogma.
CONS
Argument againstTo debate with the enemy is to recognize the legitimacy of his arguments.
Argument againstTo debate with the enemy is to participate in the dissemination of his ideas.
Argument againstDebating with the enemy leads nowhere
Argument againstYou can debate with your opponents, but not with your enemies
Argument againstThere are better ways to fight your enemies
Argument againstSome debates are humiliating, even dehumanizing for the people they target
Keywords: Debate, Enemy[ edit ].

To understand the debateTo understand the debate
[ edit ]

IntroductionArgument families

Wikipedia.svg[ + Add a link ] to a useful Wikipedia page to complement this introduction.

Arguments forPros
[ edit ]

What are the pros of adversarial debate?
  • Argument forIt's important to try and convince your opponents, even the worst ones.
  • Argument forDebating with the enemy is the best way to fight his ideas
  • Argument forDebating with the enemy allows us to progress
  • Argument forDebating with one's enemies is an ethical obligation, the opposite of discrimination.
  • Argument forDebating with the enemy helps prevent violence
  • Argument forOne must debate with one's enemies under appropriate conditions
  • Argument forTo counter the enemy, you have to know him
  • Argument forTo refuse to debate the enemy is to wallow in entrenchment and dogma.

Arguments againstCons
[ edit ]

What are the cons of adversarial debate?
  • Argument againstTo debate with the enemy is to recognize the legitimacy of his arguments.
  • Argument againstTo debate with the enemy is to participate in the dissemination of his ideas.
  • Argument againstDebating with the enemy leads nowhere
  • Argument againstYou can debate with your opponents, but not with your enemies
  • Argument againstThere are better ways to fight your enemies
  • Argument againstSome debates are humiliating, even dehumanizing for the people they target

To go furtherTo go further

BibliographyBibliography

WebliographyWebliography

VideographyVideography

Show the latest changes in the debate
Retrieved from "https://en.wikidebates.org/w/index.php?title=Should_we_debate_with_the_enemy%3F&oldid=6068"