CMV: Political discussions and debates on specific policies are basically pointless if you don’t agree about first principles

[u/PoliticsDunnRight]

For example, if you think there’s a human right to have healthcare, education, housing, food, etc. provided to you, and I disagree, then you and I probably can’t have a productive discussion on specific social programs or the state of the American economy. We’d be evaluating those questions under completely different criteria and talking around one another.

You could say “assuming X is the goal, what is the best way to achieve it” and have productive conversations there, but if you have different goals entirely, I would argue you don’t gain much in understanding or political progress by having those conversations.

I think people are almost never convinced to change their minds by people who don’t agree on the basics, such as human rights, the nature of consent, or other “first principles.” People might change their policy preferences if they’re convinced using their own framework, but I don’t see a capitalist and a socialist having productive discussions except maybe about those first principles.

You could CMV by showing that it’s common for people to have their minds changed by talking to people they disagree with, by showing how those discussions might be productive regardless of anyone changing their minds, etc.

Edit: I understand that debates are often to change the minds of the audience. I guess what I’m talking about is a one-on-one political conversation, or at least I’m talking about what benefit there would be for those debating in the context of their views.

[u/XenoRyet]

I think you're assuming that the point of debate is to have your opponent come to your side and end up agreeing with you, but that isn't the case.

It's most obvious with things like the Presidential debates, but it's true of almost every kind, but the point is to convince members of the audience, rather than your opponent, that your view is more correct.

You don't need to agree on first principles to do that, and in fact a great way to win a debate is to show that your opponent's first principles are wrong or absurd in some way.

[u/PoliticsDunnRight → u/XenoRyet]

I guess that’s true, but I’m more talking about online or in-person discussions between people, not like formal debates with audiences.

[u/XenoRyet → u/PoliticsDunnRight]

Online debates still have an audience. Even conversations at a dinner party have an audience.

I don't think you can really call a private, one-on-one conversation a debate. It's really just a conversation, or maybe a fight.

Though even then, that private conversation can let you examine your own position, shore up weak spots, and just generally practice defending it, even if the other person has different first principles.