Syria, why can we not debate?

December 2, 2015 1 Min Read

To be clear I am not in favour of air raids and strikes which is not the same not supporting military action as part of a wider set of activities. The thing that interest me in the current situation is that people reject something quickly and in many cases aggressively without rational debate.

I like to try to stay as close to truth as I can, even if it is not my desired truth, and it is then so important that you understand the situation. Many have said we are not at war even though the Oxford English Dictionary defines war as “a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country”.

This definition only requires one side to be actively pursuing war and would mean that any country or group such as Europe are engaged in war if we desire it or not. The question is on how we respond and a decision on that would be reached through debate.

Debate – “formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.”

This requires to be successful the people engaged to have rational and logical viewpoints and this is impossible when conversations become emotive, this is not saying that emotion has no place it just lessens the ability to make a considered decision.

Look at the debates and the discussions online or face to face how many can fulfil these criteria?

It saddens me that our strongest tool which should have been built over 100s of years of society and philosophy is lost to many, who see this as an opportunity to score points or use irrelevant information to justify emotive positions.

When ultimately the answer to this problem lies in the very skills and knowledge that so many in this country are not using at this very moment. The greatest power of humanity is to argue a cause that you do not believe to make sure that your view is correct (or as correct as it can be at that time).

Tags /