The Useless Debate

Aug 9, 2012 by

The idea that a poll or survey is reasonable evidence in a debate is unreasonable.  The very idea that a poll or survey has relevance is absurd. The people polled, a small sample at best, can be manipulated to prove anything. The way in which the question is worded can also be manipulated for intended results. In addition, an idea is not reasonable simply because a mjority of people believe in it. The power of truth does not reside in a majority opinion, but in logic.

It is also unreasonable to use intentional statements fabricated to mislead. For example, one of my favorite statements of “real” proof is, “most American’s think”, which of course has no basis in fact. How does anyone know what most American’s think? The power of this statement is in planting seeds of deception and doubt. There are those who are weak or lazy and will be persuaded by other’s deceptions. Reasonable people would never base any belief or action on anything other than their own research and discovery, ending in choice.

Another irresponsible statement used in debate is that something is void or does not pertain to today because it is “archaic” or “old”. Reasonable ideas and virtuous actions stand the test of time because they are not based on the whim of appetite, but on what is true.

Debate and argument that center on pitting groups of people against each other are criminal. This type of argument invokes ethnic, economic, or political conflict and offers no solutions or remedies for what ails society. It is unprotected speech according to the Supreme Court, and reason, because it incites conflict which can only end in violence.

If we are to solve the problems of a free society it will be with all arguments presented, and the most reasonable accepted. Not by polls, deception, or pitting people against one another.

Related Posts

Share This


  1. Adam

    Why do some people care and why are some people apathetic?

    What happened to those people who were once apathetic or against a sense of self-governance to lead them to care about responsibility?

    What I want to know is not IF people answer the call of responsibility, I want to know WHY they do it?

  2. Gerber

    The problem with not caring about IF and only caring about WHY is that WHY implies IF. When you ask why people do, you assume that they answer the call to responsibility.
    That said, what about the “why” are you wondering? Is it are they answering it for benefit or all or of themselves? Because the call to be responsible is not merely the act, but the intention of responsibility. If I am given the responsibility of making sure that the dogs are fed, and as I am walking outside I accidentally knock over the bag of dog food, without the intention of ever feeding them, that is not being responsible, that is dumb luck. Now, if you are wondering about the personal incentive about responsibility, this would be like me purposely feeding the dogs so that I can get five dollars pay for doing it. Is that not why we accept personal responsibility? We cannot be a nation of angels, and we need incentives. We may not always need an incentive to do the right thing, but the incentive is the trade-off of accepting responsibility. Take freedom. We have the responsibility to protect it, in exchange for the ability to use it. We do it for the incentive.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site is protected by Comment SPAM Wiper.