I often find myself reacting to news stories, answering posts in forums, and generally engaging in various discussions on Facebook or other internet forums. Note I say discussion, not debate.
A debate is really a zero-sum game. Both sides express their views and present arguments; one side wins, the other loses. In most cases, a third party (or perhaps just public opinion) adjudicates; it's rare that the loser is convinced and says "oh, you're right and I was wrong". It's much more likely that tempers flare, trolls emerge, and it all devolves into aname-calling and argument. I don't find debates terribly productive.
Dialectics, on the other hand, are discussions in which two or more people attempt to resolve disagreements using reason and logic. The outcome is not a compromise; it is a mutually-agreed-upon and often surprisingly novel truth. The discussion is merely the process through which that truth is discerned. Quakers will recognize this as a secular form of the Quaker decision-making process, in which ego is subsumed to a joint quest for a higher course of action.
High-falutin' ideas. I'd like to say this blog is dedicated to a dialectic approach to the issues that spark a reaction from me. That's my ideal. But it's my blog, and will necessarily be slanted towards my viewpoint. I will endeavor to consider and synthesize various viewpoints, but it will not be a true dialectic.
I also have a blog on LiveJournal, dating from a time when few people used their real names on the Internet. Check it out if you like. But I figure it's about time to 'go public' and write under my own name.
-Claire Curtis
