The Problem with Debating

When two people disagree on any issue, it can be very beneficial for both parties to explain the method by which they arrived at their conclusions, in an attempt to ensure that both parties know as much about the issue and the nature of the disagreement as possible. Unfortunately, with a few refreshing exceptions, the source of disagreement on any issue is much more fundamental than the issue itself (especially in the realm of philosophy, but also in other realms). For example, it is impossible to discuss politics reasonably without a common base of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and some knowledge about history and the nature of man that is not included in these fields (contrary to what some believe, capitalism is more than just the deductive application of egoism to social interactions; some knowledge about the nature of force, freedom, etc, which is outside of egoism per se, must be brought to the table).

I used to try to debate issues at the highest level possible, ignoring any possible fundamental disagreements. Within the past few years, however, whenever I find myself disagreeing with someone (and whenever I think it's worth trying to convince him), I try to find the most fundamental disagreement so that the debate can proceed properly. In many cases, especially when debating with people who disagree with me on the epistemological or even metaphysical levels, the other person decides that the discussion is simply not worth that kind of effort, and the issue is dropped. Sometimes, however, the debate will continue on the more fundamental level.

This is where it gets frustrating. The person is clearly interested in figuring out the truth (people who simply want to win the argument typically don't like it when the "battleground" changes), but the issues are so complex and fundamental that they are both difficult to describe explicitly (even if they are understood perfectly well implicitly) and difficult to change (or even convince the other person that your alternative is possible). The high involvement of the topics combined with the fact that two opposing wills are involved often leads to long, possibly necessary, tangents, and after a few hours of debate only moderate ground, if any, has been established.

I don't find this kind of discussion completely useless (so long as you don't fall into a loop or concede any ground without reason), but it's a lot of work for what seems like very little progress and there's the ever-present fear of saying something the wrong way and turning someone off to an idea (even though it's not your responsibility to make sure others are rational, it's reasonable to want to "serve" the truth in the best way possible). I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, I just needed to vent a bit after a very long discussion that still isn't really over.