Why do some people ignore facts and logic just to be right?

You answered your own question.

They ignore facts and logic just to be right.

They seek validation and enjoyment in being right, even if that means putting up a wall and ignoring logic.

Fear! Looking good is the flaw of our ego! So fear of failure and vertices facts. Like Trump, facts don’t matter unless they make him look right?

As a general rule, it's never a good idea to ignore reason.

It is helpful, though, to understand that reason is simply an extraordinarily useful tool, and a peculiarly human one, and not the be-all and end-all of existence. In Plato's Phaedrus, Socrates tells Phaedrus that madness (manike, cf. mania) is not to be discounted as useless or undesirable:

But he who, having no touch of the Muses' madness in his soul, comes to the door and thinks that he will get into the temple by the help of art--he, I say, and his poetry are not admitted; the sane man disappears and is nowhere when he enters into

As a general rule, it's never a good idea to ignore reason.

It is helpful, though, to understand that reason is simply an extraordinarily useful tool, and a peculiarly human one, and not the be-all and end-all of existence. In Plato's Phaedrus, Socrates tells Phaedrus that madness (manike, cf. mania) is not to be discounted as useless or undesirable:

But he who, having no touch of the Muses' madness in his soul, comes to the door and thinks that he will get into the temple by the help of art--he, I say, and his poetry are not admitted; the sane man disappears and is nowhere when he enters into rivalry with the madman. I might tell of many other noble deeds which have sprung from inspired madness. (trans. B. Jowett)


Now, crucially, it was Plato--at least as he was interpreted and taught by later thinkers--who set reason upon a pedestal as the path to the highest sort of understanding of which people are capable. This idea, and its manifestations elsewhere, defined much of Western intellectual culture for ages and in large measure continues to do so today. One end result has been a pervasive dogma which categorically asserts that rational is good and irrational is bad, or at least that the irrational is a kind of necessary or vestigial evil that must be reined in at every opportunity. But I don't think Plato, for his part, would agree with such an assertion at all. Clearly he doesn't.

One area in which the disparity and incompatibility between reason and the irrational is most apparent is aesthetics. How can one reason about what is beautiful in the same way that one can reason about momentum and inertia? It's not that reason has no place in aesthetics at all, it's just that the aesthetic is not fundamentally reducible to the rational. For some philosophers, especially post-Kant, ethics has a similarly irrational component. While logical structures can operate upon ethical judgments, they can't contain them nor can they account for them fully. Logicians want to understand what makes a certain proposition or proof strong or weak, so they look for holes and violations in an established system of communication, a rule-bound symbol language. But ethical judgments are essentially swiss cheese by their very nature, according to this way of thinking.

So one takeaway from all of this is that, while it may not be wise to ignore reason under any circumstances, realizing that reason is a property which humans project onto the world around them and onto themselves rather than a property which is inherent in the world is probably key to a more circumspect, fluid, and relaxed understanding.

I should add for the sake of thoroughness that I think this idea has many applications in the real world of everyday experience. It is, for example, of great instrumentality in the political arena with respect to "hot button" issues and why they are preyed upon by politicians; it's of use in a well-rounded understanding of debates between the religious and the irreligious; and it's certainly critical to getting a handle on one's own decision-making processes as an individual. At least, it has been and continues to be for me.

Logic is a series of concentric circles. (Bear with me.)

There's the Rational circle, where you are. It’s full of all the logical stuff that you believe because you're a logical person.

There's the Irrational circle, outside of the Rational circle. That's full of all the stuff that most people believe because they’re illogical people.

And then there are some further circles outside that. The realms of fantasy. Stuff that's too absurd to contemplate.

Have a diagram:

As you go from the outside of the diagram to the centre, you get progressively more logical.

Oh, the centre circle? Well, we all know so

Logic is a series of concentric circles. (Bear with me.)

There's the Rational circle, where you are. It’s full of all the logical stuff that you believe because you're a logical person.

There's the Irrational circle, outside of the Rational circle. That's full of all the stuff that most people believe because they’re illogical people.

And then there are some further circles outside that. The realms of fantasy. Stuff that's too absurd to contemplate.

Have a diagram:

As you go from the outside of the diagram to the centre, you get progressively more logical.

Oh, the centre circle? Well, we all know some folks who think they're smarter than us. But they’re never discussing anything important. It’s mostly black holes, clever ways of voting in elections and the correct capitalisation of movie titles. You swear you once overheard two of them arguing about how clouds stay in the sky. I mean, that's just obvious, right? It's just… it's just… right?

Okay, let's say I found a magic wand and raised your IQ by 20 points. What difference would you notice?

Some of the smart people in the centre circle would no longer seem all that smart.

It’s not that you’ve taken sides in their arguments about tiny differences that don’t matter. You just don’t see them as valid arguments any more. The correct answer is obvious.

You’ve stepped inside the centre circle - you’ve zoomed in. And it turns out that the centre circle contains its own irrational stuff that most people believe, then a smaller amount of rational stuff that you believe, and then a nucleus of so-called really smart people arguing about more tiny differences that don’t matter (simply connected n-dimensional manifolds, whether Chairman Mao was tragically misunderstood, the phonetics of extinct Caucasian languages.)

So instead of looking like this:

Your world now looks like this (2.5x magnification):

Now you see the problem with telling people to be logical. It’s a fractal. If you could switch places with your neighbourhood Mensa member and not notice any relative change in your surroundings, then you have to assume you could also switch places with the person you're arguing against and not notice any change.

No-one wakes up in the morning and thinks “I’m going to try being illogical today, and see how that goes!” You can count the number of people who have become more logical because you told them to on the fingers of no hands.

Goodall’s Incompleteness Theorem: Whenever you think you’re defending logic, you’re actually defending something different.

You will always end up saying something like:

“Okay, what you’re saying may be logical, but your logic is complicated and mine is simple.”

“Okay, what you’re saying may be logical, but your logic is morally repugnant and mine is morally virtuous.”

“Okay, what you’re saying may be logical, but your logic doesn’t take sufficient notice of the empirical evidence and mine does.”

“Okay, what you’re saying may be logical, but your motivation for using that logic is questionable and mine is pure.”

In none of those cases are you arguing for logic and against illogic. You’re arguing for simplicity, morality, empiricism and ingenuity against their opposites.

You can’t build a logic fortress to keep out the arguments you don’t like. As soon as you do, your opponents will tell you you’ve built the walls of the logic fortress in the wrong place. Unless you do what the Christian apologists do and script every argument in advance, you’re going to have to argue over values at some point.

After a lifetime of frustration and consternation over the words and actions of others, I recently came to the only logical conclusion: somewhere on the order of 80% of the population of all humans are utterly stupid.

Now, I know that sounds harsh, but let me explain. I'm not saying that, in general, people are utter morons, incapable of functioning to any degree within society. Clearly, that isn't the case. When I say "stupid", it's important to point out that there are many different kinds of stupid. You've probably heard someone talk about "book smart" people, or people that have "no common

After a lifetime of frustration and consternation over the words and actions of others, I recently came to the only logical conclusion: somewhere on the order of 80% of the population of all humans are utterly stupid.

Now, I know that sounds harsh, but let me explain. I'm not saying that, in general, people are utter morons, incapable of functioning to any degree within society. Clearly, that isn't the case. When I say "stupid", it's important to point out that there are many different kinds of stupid. You've probably heard someone talk about "book smart" people, or people that have "no common sense", and these are just two broad categories of people. If you spend the time to watch people, as I have, you'll eventually arrive at the same conclusion. I'm not even sure why it took me this long to figure it out. Maybe I'm just stupid?

Here are some examples of stupidity you can see every day (there are hundreds more):

  1. People who run across a busy street because the crosswalk is 100 yards away. I guess it's just "too far" to walk.
  2. People who will drive around a parking lot for 15 minutes because the empty spots are just "too far" from where they are going.
  3. People who will merrily cram onto a packed train like sardines when the next train, which is usually close to being empty, is coming in another minute. Maybe it's just "too long" to wait.
  4. People who drive 10 or more miles per hour over the posted limit, because the 10 extra miles they'll travel every hour apparently constitute a "meaningful time saving".

Do I really need to point out the fallible logic of "saving time" while risking one's life?

Maybe the word you use is better: irrational. I can point out these errors in judgment, and folks will continue to use the same patterns in their life. And it follows that purely logic-drive arguments don't have an impact either. In some cases, the most maddening of all, these people will openly agree that they are being totally illogical in their approach, and then still continue on.

So, to answer your question, the only realistic way to deal with these people is to admit that they exist and that there is no help for them. And, maybe take heart that you're not quite as "stupid" as they are.

Most people are like ah yes I just accept their opinion.

The thing is, I have to be right. That’s just how I am. I hold some very controversial opinions on religion that I will not go into here that my “I am right” attitude comes from.

The thing is, the majority of the time, I am right. Anyway. People who ignore facts? I will ensure they know that they are ridiculous, that their ideas are based on totally false premises, and whilst I will not allow it to affect our social standing, I will ensure that they are aware that there is a wealth of information that proves them wrong.

Let’s just say that

Most people are like ah yes I just accept their opinion.

The thing is, I have to be right. That’s just how I am. I hold some very controversial opinions on religion that I will not go into here that my “I am right” attitude comes from.

The thing is, the majority of the time, I am right. Anyway. People who ignore facts? I will ensure they know that they are ridiculous, that their ideas are based on totally false premises, and whilst I will not allow it to affect our social standing, I will ensure that they are aware that there is a wealth of information that proves them wrong.

Let’s just say that a close friend is extremely Christian. I would be forced to accept our differences. But the thing is, I enjoy having debates about religion and philosophy and the likes. How can I argue with a Christian about the ridiculousness of their religion (I mean no offence, but all religion is absolute bologna)? How can I talk to a Trump supporter about how all people are equal, regardless of gender, sexuality or race, and that they are privileged whilst they are also my best friend? I can’t. Not in person anyway. Not to someone close to me. So I don’t make friends with them.

If you have values which include “I should be able to violate someone’s basic human right of control over their body,” “personal benefit to me outweighs the suffering of another human” or “I will ignore the facts presented to me because they disprove my ideas” I like to steer clear of. Or argue with them.

You see, the thing is, people who ignore facts are generally dumb as well. And there is nothing more fun than annoying a dumb person. Because you will always win.

I may be a bit of a nasty person, but if they keep their ideas away from me and the rest of the people observing their duties as human beings, I keep my nastiness away from them.

Edit: It’s been pointed out to me that you don’t always win with dumb people. Sometimes it can be fun to annoy them. However, I like to stray away from them. If it so comes that I can’t stray away, I may as well enjoy our interaction!

They don't get out much.
They don't travel.
They don't read.
They don't watch documentaries.
They are not exposed to people from other cultures.

As a native New Yorker, I attended the University of Michigan, a conservative state with a mostly white population. I wanted to see the world. (Fortunately, I had just visited cousins in Europe for the first time that summer).

In my English composition class, we had an African American Teaching Assistant for our section. He asked the class to guess where each person was from. When he indicated me, a classmate asked, "Are you from another country?" I sai

They don't get out much.
They don't travel.
They don't read.
They don't watch documentaries.
They are not exposed to people from other cultures.

As a native New Yorker, I attended the University of Michigan, a conservative state with a mostly white population. I wanted to see the world. (Fortunately, I had just visited cousins in Europe for the first time that summer).

In my English composition class, we had an African American Teaching Assistant for our section. He asked the class to guess where each person was from. When he indicated me, a classmate asked, "Are you from another country?" I said, "Yeah, Noo Yawk."

But it became increasingly obvious, that for some of my classmates, most of whom grew up in Michigan outside the Detroit area, this teacher was the first African American they had ever encountered. And their racism was unconsciously undisguised when they addressed him in discussions about our writing. They treated him like an inferior. It was sickening to watch. But he clearly had expected it.

I was shocked, coming from a liberal and progressive high school and a diverse neighborhood. My mother was a family worker for a time at my elementary school and we sometimes met the immigrant and poor families she was helping. My teachers, classmates, neighbors, and best friends were of a variety ethnicities and nations.

Now, I am no longer shocked by anything.

Original question:

Why are some people so culturally ignorant?

I’d say, Sunny Leone in her interview with Bhupendra Chaubey.

This particular interview that I’m gonna talk about is an archetype of misogyny and serves as a perfect example of how certain self-proclaimed guardians of morality and culture have a habit of dehumanizing others.

For those who don’t know her, Sunny Leone (real name Karenjit Kaur Vohra) is a Canadian-American actress who works in Bollywood. Before entering Bollywood, she worked as a pornographic actress.

Back in 2016, Sunny Leone was interviewed by a journalist named Bhupendra Chaubey in a program called ‘Hot Seat’. In the interview, B

I’d say, Sunny Leone in her interview with Bhupendra Chaubey.

This particular interview that I’m gonna talk about is an archetype of misogyny and serves as a perfect example of how certain self-proclaimed guardians of morality and culture have a habit of dehumanizing others.

For those who don’t know her, Sunny Leone (real name Karenjit Kaur Vohra) is a Canadian-American actress who works in Bollywood. Before entering Bollywood, she worked as a pornographic actress.

Back in 2016, Sunny Leone was interviewed by a journalist named Bhupendra Chaubey in a program called ‘Hot Seat’. In the interview, Bhupendra asked Sunny a series of downright sexist and judgemental questions, as if he was trying to shame her for her pre-Bollywood career. Sunny, however, dealt with the questions like an absolute badass, making Bhupendra look like a crass idiot.

Here are some of the sexist questions/comments that Chaubey asked Leone, along with the answers that she gave:

  • There are some people who think if Sunny Leone becomes the brand ambassador of India, it's a very dangerous trend. What do you think about that?

Sunny’s answer to that was:

Honestly, you're the first person to say this to me.

  • There are some women who fear that their husbands will be taken away by Sunny Leone. Do you agree?

Sunny responded to this with:

Sorry, I don't want your husbands. I have my own and I love him. He's hot and sexy. He's very smart and talented. Sorry ladies, I don't want your husbands.

  • I'm told that Kapil Sharma, the host of Comedy Nights with Kapil, said at one time that he was not comfortable in shooting with you because he has a 'family audience'. What do you think about that?

Sunny answered:

I've no idea of that comment since I have been on that show multiple times, and I'm happy that I got to be there. And if there were something like that, I wouldn't be on his show so many times.

  • A lot of male actors felt apprehensive about working with you when approached for a role in the movie 'Ek Paheli Leela'. The commercial value of your work seems to be quite high but it also appears that there's a lot of resistance in working with you. How do you deal with that?

Sunny replied:

I don't care about anyone else's inhibitions and insecurity. It actually doesn't affect my life at all. I work every single day and I'm very happy with that. So if I work with ABC or XYZ, it doesn't affect me because I'm still working.

  • If you wanted to work with Aamir Khan and he didn't wanna work with you because of your past, how would it reflect on you?

She responded with:

It wouldn't affect me. I would still remain an Aamir fan and watch his movies. I'm a realist, and of course, I have dreams, but at the end of the day, I'm a business person.

  • Do you not sometimes get affected by the fact that your past, your past that you were this 'porn queen', will continue to haunt you? Or maybe continue to pull you back?

Her response was:

But you're the only person I’ve seen who’s making those assumptions. I've never said that it haunts me, nor am I held back.

  • If I were to turn the clock back, would you still do what you did?

Sunny replied:

I have no regrets about what I did in my life. I have a beautiful life, and I had to do it again, I would because everything that I've done in my life has led me here.

  • I don't know if I'm being morally corrupted because I'm interviewing you.

Sunny hit back with:

I can leave if you want me to.

From the beginning till the end, Bhupendra Chaubey’s intent was to humiliate Sunny Leone, but she didn’t let him. She did a pretty good job in shutting up his BS.

He received a lot of criticism for his behavior from a lot of celebrities, while they praised Sunny Leone for the way she dealt with him. Here are some of the comments that celebrities made about the interview:

Even Aamir Khan made a comment about it in a news interview:

I watched Sunny’s interview where the journalist was talking to her in a very disrespectful manner. I feel nobody should be treated like that.

The journalist said to her that Aamir wouldn’t wanna work with her because of who she is and the work she used to do before entering Bollywood. Upon seeing that, I felt really bad upon seeing how he was humiliating her.

So, I just wanna say, I’d love to work with you, Sunny. Don’t pay attention to that guy.

Sad thing is, Bhupendra Chaubey’s behavior is not uncommon in India. A lot of people here tend to dehumanize/judge people who do things that aren’t conservative. I mean seriously, people working in the adult entertainment industry aren’t harming anyone, and they’re humans, just like us. Their choice of profession/lifestyle doesn’t make them characterless or morally questionable. What gives us the right to insult/judge them the way Bhupendra Chaubey insulted/judged Sunny Leone? You don’t like what they do? Don’t watch it. Nobody’s forcing you.

Image Source:

  • CNN-IBN
  • Twitter

Reference:

'She is a rockstar': Bollywood applauds Sunny Leone's zen-like responses to Bhupendra Chaubey-Bollywood News , Firstpost
One is unclear what the purpose of Chaubey's interview with Sunny Leone was.
https://www.firstpost.com/bollywood/she-is-a-rockstar-bollywood-applauds-sunny-leones-zen-like-attitude-towards-bhupendra-chaubey-2590130.html

Try emotion.

For most of human evolutionary history, the ability to respond to emotion has been a much more useful evolutionary advantage than the ability to respond to data or facts, which are pretty recent in evolutionary terms. Emotions precede even language.

Of course, the bedrock of a modern functioning society should ideally be rational public discourse devoid of any appeal to emotion but hey, natural selection couldn’t care less about any of that.

There are tons of evidence that suggests that human decision-making is primarily emotional. The decisions can range from choosing what to eat[1] t

Footnotes

Try emotion.

For most of human evolutionary history, the ability to respond to emotion has been a much more useful evolutionary advantage than the ability to respond to data or facts, which are pretty recent in evolutionary terms. Emotions precede even language.

Of course, the bedrock of a modern functioning society should ideally be rational public discourse devoid of any appeal to emotion but hey, natural selection couldn’t care less about any of that.

There are tons of evidence that suggests that human decision-making is primarily emotional. The decisions can range from choosing what to eat[1] to even voting in elections.[2]

So, to convince someone, you don’t just throw facts at them but also supplement them with emotional anecdotes. You follow up “Rigorous peer-reviewed research has conclusively found no causal relationship between vaccination and autism” with a story of a poor couple’s only child who succumbed to pneumonia because she wasn’t vaccinated, and talk about how the couple regrets not doing so.

The key word here is supplement. One won’t do without the other. Facts don’t evoke emotion but anecdotes do, and we internally justify those emotions using facts. According to British psychologist Rob Yeung, fear, shame and pride are very persuasive emotions.[3]

Sometimes, it helps to think of ourselves as just apes with an internet connection.

Footnotes

Jealousy

In my life, I had a lot of people like that in my school and even college. If you’re doing well in the subjects, you achieved something really high or you impressed the faculty, then there are chances that people are jealous of you.

If you’re really good-looking or have an amazing talent, you will get a lot of compliments but you never know that deep inside the person, the devil of jealousy may have his abode.

Immaturity

Sometimes, people spread rumors about you or they simply broadcast your ‘weird’ story to everyone. Others who heard your tale, will normally ignore you or act in a differ

Jealousy

In my life, I had a lot of people like that in my school and even college. If you’re doing well in the subjects, you achieved something really high or you impressed the faculty, then there are chances that people are jealous of you.

If you’re really good-looking or have an amazing talent, you will get a lot of compliments but you never know that deep inside the person, the devil of jealousy may have his abode.

Immaturity

Sometimes, people spread rumors about you or they simply broadcast your ‘weird’ story to everyone. Others who heard your tale, will normally ignore you or act in a different way. Without analyzing the story, without asking you for your side of the story, without putting themselves in your shoes, they will just judge you and ignore you even if you did them no wrong.

Drama

Sometimes, people will just observe you and ignore you for every minute mistake you make. They’ll remember every wrong action done by you and will you ignore you. They’ll only ignore you till you, yourself ask them the reason for the sudden ignorance.

Let me get this straight.

Is it okay to ignore logic and be ignorant when someone else is “ignoring logic and being ignorant”?

Can you see the problem with that logic?

Picking on someone because they don’t agree with you is called bullying. It will not make you look good and it will not win the argument.

Going ‘off-topic’ to attack someones personal life isn’t winning the argument. It’s a personal attack. You then open the door for them to attack you personally, instead of whatever you’re talking about.

This sounds like the start of a fight instead of a constructive argument.

So, please don’t do tha

Let me get this straight.

Is it okay to ignore logic and be ignorant when someone else is “ignoring logic and being ignorant”?

Can you see the problem with that logic?

Picking on someone because they don’t agree with you is called bullying. It will not make you look good and it will not win the argument.

Going ‘off-topic’ to attack someones personal life isn’t winning the argument. It’s a personal attack. You then open the door for them to attack you personally, instead of whatever you’re talking about.

This sounds like the start of a fight instead of a constructive argument.

So, please don’t do that :)

Q. Why do you think there are some people who avoid the debate or the comparison of ideas even when these people are theoretically completely right?

I don’t know what you mean by “the comparison of ideas” or “theoretically completely right”? (How is that different from “completely right”), so I’ll focus on “debate.”

I avoid debate whether I’m theoretically completely right, completely right, partially right, partially wrong, completely wrong, or theoretically completely wrong. I see nothing worthwhile about debate. It’s a waste of my time.

You may mean something different by “debate” than I do. H

Q. Why do you think there are some people who avoid the debate or the comparison of ideas even when these people are theoretically completely right?

I don’t know what you mean by “the comparison of ideas” or “theoretically completely right”? (How is that different from “completely right”), so I’ll focus on “debate.”

I avoid debate whether I’m theoretically completely right, completely right, partially right, partially wrong, completely wrong, or theoretically completely wrong. I see nothing worthwhile about debate. It’s a waste of my time.

You may mean something different by “debate” than I do. Here’s my definition: a form of argument, friendly or adversarial, in which each party tries to convince the others involved that he’s right and they’re wrong. Generally, in a debate, there are winners and losers, and each participant is trying to win.

This is a completely reasonable past-time if you happen to find it entertaining. I don’t. I find it boring. Which isn’t to say anything negative about it. Some people like football; others don’t. Since I don’t, I neither play nor watch it. Same with debate.

Another selling point for debate is that it’s educational or a means of getting at the truth. I believe it’s inefficient at both of those tasks, and, worse, it often stands in the way of them. None of which matters if it’s entertaining, but, as I said, to me, it’s not.

In my experience, when a discussion is framed as a debate—even a friendly one, even when the word “debate” is just used to mean “a rigorous discussion”—agendas tend to creep in that are at odds with intellectual growth. In general, I find “trying to win,” “trying to convince,” and “trying to prove him wring” hinderances to rigorous discussion. The debate context tends to make some lizard-brain impulses switch on, and the lizard brain doesn’t play well with ideas.

I believe the same issues are at play with “Debates are more valuable to the people listening than the people debating.” It’s of course possible for anyone to learn from anything, but debate is not generally a good tool for education. Though the folks being “educated,” if they have different tastes from me, might feel entertained.

That “valuable to the people listening” is usually evoked after and admission that debates rarely change the minds of the people debating. Since I neither think it’s good for that or for changing the minds of listeners, you can see I might have little time for it.

Debate is especially problematic if what you most care about is learning, because it’s (most often) a form of not-learning that feels like learning. The supposed context is intellectual, and the take-no-prisoners rhetoric of it evokes one of those stern, movie professors who says, “Think! Think! Think! Use your brain, dammit! Focus!” which doesn’t actually make people think, use their brains, or focus, but if said with enough oomph, it can feel like it does.

Sadly, I’ve discovered that a lot of people—especially people who like to debate—believe there are only two forms of conversation: head-to-head debate or syrupy niceness, in which no one challenges anyone because they don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. I don’t blame them. No one teaches kids how to be rigorous outside the context of debate, argument, or fight. One can learn how to do this, but no one is born knowing it.

And instead of teaching it, we actually teach debate and hold it up as a great educational tool.

There are other uses for debate: it can sometimes be good for shaming, depending on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the participants. It can be excellent as a form of social signaling—signaling to one’s tribe that you’re willing to fight the good fight. And it can be a good way of appearing intellectual.

All of those things impulses are a normal part of being human. if someone denies he ever has an impulse to shame, show his loyalty to his group, or come across as smart, he’s probably lying—to others and/or to himself. But It’s not socially acceptable to admit to having these motives, so we have various rituals to allow is to meet our needs covertly. Debate is one of them.

Debate’s entertainment value can also be enhanced by its mask of being not-entertainment or not-just-entertainment. in the West (and maybe other parts of the world, too, but i can’t speak to that), there’s a Protestant Work Ethic that gives extra points to entertainments if they have some sort of “medicinal value.” It’s like how some folks say “Children’s work is their play.” It evokes that idea that play for its own sake—just for fun—is not good enough, but we should allow children to play, because it’s necessary for their intellectual, physical, and social development.

in other words, debate can be a fantastic way of getting certain basic human needs met while not feeling guilty about doing so, because debate seems to be more elevated than that.

i have all the same needs as any other human: i need my tribe-mates to like me; i need my ego boosted; I need to be entertained; I even need to shame sometimes. But, for me, debate isn’t useful or enjoyable for any of those purposes.