Ignorance is defined as; lack of knowledge or information.
However, the writer believes that ignorance isn’t the mere lack of knowledge, but the situation when one denies to gain knowledge and refuses the truth with no base whatsoever.
Throughout your life, you will have many arguments, discussions, and debates over a various number of topics with different kinds of people at both official and unofficial levels.
These usually turn out to be constructive and expose both sides to a wide range of opinions, ideas, and information. However, in some cases, one side may be ignorant.
It is highly recommended not to drag on a debate with an ignorant speaker as the discussion usually drifts off towards something else and not the topic at hand. The writer does not recommend avoiding debates with such people but dragging a debate over a small issue is a waste of time in some cases.
You can easily identify such people with the following qualities;
i) Their rebuttals contain personal hate
If the person you are debating or discussing a topic with, throws personal hate at you and/or starts bringing in matters of the past or personal grudges- abandon debate!
A flaw of this generation is that people value ‘roasting’ and ‘insulting-back’ people more than actually giving a meaningful and logical response. Unacceptable.
ii) They don’t take the time to read your stats
Often, in debates regarding controversial and vast topics (mainly political), you might cite links and numbers to prove your point, but the opposition is going to ignore what you mentioned and will continue to repeat the same thing that you refuted.
But again, they didn’t even read your refutation so how is the debate gonna go forward and why would they change their point?
iii) They are way too proud and over-confident about their source(s)
Mostly in political debates, the opposition uses the media as the only source of information and cites anything and everything from media and rely on it to such an extent that they refuse to accept your citings even if they are from governments and audits.
On a general scale, some researches and/or stats they cite might have hidden disparities and drawbacks that they refuse to accept.
iv) (in some topics) they refuse to look at logical reasoning and solely rely on evidence and overlook experiences, witnesses and live examples.
Some topics that affect the society and community shouldn’t be debated upon by centering evidence and data. They are vital but their use should not overlook experiences and examples.
In some cases, people rely solely on evidence in order to strengthen the self-proclamation of being a man of evidence and proof. This is incorrect as all boundaries of the topic are not covered. The opposition will continue to ignore the usage of experiences and examples even when stated and stick to ‘evidence’ in pride of statistics.
So these are the four main qualities often found in aggressive and ignorant debaters of the 21st century. Tackling such people isn’t an easy task but if someone can manage to bring such a person out of their bubble and show them light, they have done wonders.
However at times, when the opposition gets too aggressive, stopping the debate for at least a time being is recommended to calm them down as they often value their ego more than a constructive and fruitful discussion.
A helpful tactic to deal with such people is to keep our own chill, not get mad at them, keep giving logical replies with a moderated and friendly tone. Play around with words and sentences to appeal to the opposition in a stylish way. Cliche methods of appealing won’t work out for them. Try something new!
Do you know any more qualities of aggressive and/or ignorant debaters? Do you find yourself in any of these categories? Have you had an experience with such a kind of person before? Feel free to share your thoughts!