“It’s not debatable”…
…is a weak argument, one I read sometimes on this blog and read quite often elsewhere.
To my way of thinking, one of the most suspect arguments about anything political and/or historical is that “it’s not debatable” – unless the person is speaking of a fact known with as much certainty as humans beings can muster, such as “the battle of (whatever) occurred on such and such a day” or “2 + 2 = 4.”
For example, what was going on in the Iraq War (or the Vietnam War or the Civil War or any number of wars) in terms of reasons it occurred, tactics, strategy, goals, and outcome is at the very least debatable. The winner of that debate may be rather clear or rather murky, and you may agree or disagree on that, too (it’s debatable). But it’s an insult to people to say it’s not debatable and to then refuse to argue your case, supposedly for that reason.
Now, I can completely understand why a person might not want to rehash the whole thing over and over again. I often get tired of debates, or am just not interested in debating a particular topic. But that’s a far cry from saying it’s not debatable.
The square root of a negative number was once thought to be “not debatable” (not possible). It turned out that without such a critter, mathematical descriptions of certain aspects of the physical world were not possible.
I don’t say “it’s not debatable.” That’s interesting above about the math. Good to know.
Well the “it’s not debatable” came up in a comment thread just yesterday about a certain recently deceased revered military leader, Others may disagree with or debate that assertion of absolute truth some other day.
“In the 20th century, Communism’s death toll made Nazism look like open mic night at the coffee shop” is not debatable. And yet, here we are.
Neo,
One of the sins of which we are all guilty is akin to the old joke about the 3 blind men describing an elephant (one feels only the trunk, one feels only the tail and one feels only the legs) and drawing their description from that evidence and that evidence alone. Thus, “It’s not debatable” because it defies the limited information which I possess. It would do us well to remember that limitation.
We then become entrenched in a position and take criticism of it personally. We all have opinions and we all have favorites. You may have noticed that I use the abbreviation IMO instead of IMHO because I believe that if I am truly willing to voice my opinion in a public forum I should not cloak it in some false sense of humility if I were really being humble, would I voice my opinion at all?
As you, and we, know, the beauty of the American experience is that we can HAVE these differences and can still remain unhostile. We mostly do so here. Thanks for that opportunity, by the way.
(not possible)
Is akin to Parmenides’ objection to Non-Being: because it “is not”, there’s just nothing to say about it. Cannot be said.
Actually, “non-debatable” doesn’t mean inflexibly true or correct, it means that truth or falsehood of a statement can’t be determined by mere debate. Not that it’s used that way; it’s used to add unwarranted authority or gravitas to an unsupported statement. I suppose it’s a little better than “demonstrably”, which is commonly used by people who fail to actually demonstrate anything. And of course it beats good ol’ “literally”, which is literally used as a synonym for “figuratively”.
Re: imaginary numbers, the problem lay (as usual in mathematics) in the attempt to divorce it from the physical world. In William Kingdon Clifford’s “geometric algebra,” which reconciled this divorce in the late 19th century, the fact that “i” represents a rotation, and in fact is a special case of the “unit multivector,” is quite clear (well, once you beat your head against the wall until our entire pathetic “math education” falls out and leaves room for the much simpler, more general approaches that were abandoned when Gibbs and his ilk became famous).
is quite clear
Gotcha.
From what I understand the one area of science where “it’s not debatable” is in climate science and the “fact” that the magic molecule CO2 completely controls all aspects of the planet’s climate. /sarc off
Yeah, I’m pretty tired of hearing “Full stop” also.
It’s always said of some highly questionable assertion for which the speaker is clearly incapable of making a case.
“Debatable” reminds me of the legal process, which is not really just about facts. It is about which of two opposing lawyers, or teams of lawyers, wins the argument. “Argument” is an oft-used word in the legal realm.
Which is why, I suppose, legal beagles are not held in highest esteem.
They argue for a living.
I prefer to kill disease.
physicsguy:
Not only is it not debatable it is a “consensus,” which is even more non debatable! You aren’t a “denier” or “anti-science” are you?
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.
“It’s not debatable” is like saying “the science is settled” with respect to global warming- excuse me, “climate change”. The science is never settled.
Rc: Ricky Gervais killed last night! Not debatable.
Dc: Who? Didn’t happen.
As someone who I think has used the phrase around here, I feel perfectly comfortable using it when someone confronts me with assertions like “The Earth revolves around the Sun!” or “Supermodels date Leonardo DiCaprio for his mind!” or “The Iraq War was a great idea that couldn’t have gone better!”
Or try this example: I do not think it is debatable that alleged WMDs were the major justification given for the Iraq War and the lack of them should have been and should remain a really big deal. Were there other reasons given to justify the war? Sure! Could those other reasons have been persuasive to some people? Absolutely! But I lived through the Iraq War debate and I know that “We can’t wait for the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” or Colin Powell waving a vial of pretend anthrax around at the UN was the primary justification given to the American people for why we needed to invade Iraq.
If someone tries to gaslight me about why we went to war in Iraq, I’m going to correct them and tell them it’s not debatable. When the New York Times tries to tell us the American Revolution was fought to protect slavery, the New York Times is wrong and that isn’t debatable. It’s a phrase I believe appropriate for that kind of ridiculous BS.
Can it be overused or used in situations where it is neither accurate nor appropriate? Of course! Which makes it exactly like just about every other rhetorical technique known to Man.
Mike
The word may not mean what you think it means. Think what you want. Just don’t fall into all caps. That doesn’t help either.
MBunge:
You are intelligent enough to be well aware that no one here has ever written “The Iraq War was a great idea that couldn’t have gone better!” That’s a strawman argument you are using.
And yes, you have indeed used “It’s not debatable” in the manner I’m critiquing in this post.
The things you cite are indeed debatable, and people have been debating them with you – quite successfully, in my opinion – on this blog. I believe I have also previously referred you to some older posts on the subject of the Iraq War, its justification and execution and related matters. There are PLENTY more on this blog from the first decade of the 21st Century in particular. I have no interest in debating these things again and anew, because I spent many years debating them already. But they are almost infinitely debatable, and the more you say they are not, the weaker your argument seems.
“You are intelligent enough to be well aware that no one here has ever written “The Iraq War was a great idea that couldn’t have gone better!” That’s a strawman argument you are using.”
Uh, are you saying supermodels DO date Leo for his mind? I think grouping the Iraq statement with the other two pretty clearly defined it as hyperbole and, as such, trying to portray it as a “strawman argument” is in fact an actual strawman argument.
The more serious example was quite obviously the Iraq and WMD thing and there has been somebody at this place who tried to tell me that weapons of mass destruction were NOT the primary justification given for invading Iraq. That’s patent nonsense and the days when I can afford to waste time going back and forth with someone over patent nonsense have long since passed. Trust me, you do not want to see me and some other idiot going at it in dozens of posts in a comment thread.
Mike
Mike:
Seriously, why do you bring out your hobby horse of the Iraq War? No one else wants to ride it anymore. It could be two idiots arguing; no one wants to read that IMO..
MBunge:
While you were writing your last comment, I was adding more to my previous comment to you.
Why cite a hyperbolic, ridiculous, and never-uttered statement about the war along with the other hyperbolic statements? Why put that hyperbolic sentence in at all, when no one on this blog has ever said anything even remotely like that? For strawman purposes.
You used the “it’s not debatable” phrase for topics much less hyperbolic than that. And that’s what we’re talking about.
Including your “patent nonsense” argument. That’s another weak one. If you’re really interested in learning something about the arguments about what the justification was for going into Iraq, see this. You can say it was really about WMDs – and that certainly was part of it – but that argument was remembered as the primary one mostly because it seemed the most dramatic reason to the public and the press (and of course because ultimately there were no WMDs found, so it became a way to criticize Bush and say he lied).
But read the list. It is far from “patent nonsense” to say that WMDs were not the primary justification given for invading Iraq. It’s something on which reasonable people may disagree.
And calling arguments you don’t appear able to successfully refute “patent nonsense” doesn’t enhance your argumentative clout.
OK, Mike’s had his 15 seconds of attention.
Next.
tom swift on January 6, 2020 at 4:27 pm said:
Actually, “non-debatable” doesn’t mean inflexibly true or correct, it means that truth or falsehood of a statement can’t be determined by mere debate. Not that it’s used that way; it’s used to add unwarranted authority or gravitas to an unsupported statement. I suppose it’s a little better than “demonstrably”, which is commonly used by people who fail to actually demonstrate anything. And of course it beats good ol’ “literally”, which is literally used as a synonym for “figuratively”.
* * *
This begs the question that perhaps they are all channeling Humpty Dumpty.
Here’s an old joke I ran across recently:
A man goes to a doctor with a complaint.
“Yes, it would appear that you have the early symptoms of Tom Jones syndrome,” the doctor says.
“Well I’ve never heard of that. Is it common?” asks the man.
“It’s not unusual,” replies the doctor.
Ba-da-boom!
om on January 6, 2020 at 4:10 pm said:
Well the “it’s not debatable” came up in a comment thread just yesterday about a certain recently deceased revered military leader,
* * *
Perhaps that comment made some mention of the pearl-clutching by the Democrats and MSM?
It’s not debatable that the world’s a better place.
It’s not debatable that the egg’s on Iran’s face.
But when they see Trump getting praise from anyone,
It’s not debatable we’ll see them cry,
They gotta lie.
On second thought I should have made “It’s not debatable” the punchline and let inquiring minds fill in the association.
AesopFan: Nicely done!
huxley – I know great minds run in the same channel, but at the exact same time??
AesopFan: Geez. I didn’t notice. Spooky! Spooky! Brr!
My guess is we shared some incarnations together….
huxley – which one of us was the cat?
AesopFan: I’m pretty sure I was the walrus and you were the cat. Or maybe:
If you’ll be my bodyguard
I can be your long lost pal
I can call you Betty
And Betty when you call me
You can call me Al.
–Paul Simon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq-gYOrU8bA
AesopFan:
huxley is correct, not debatable, it was an inspired lyrical adaptation. Now if I can only get Emily Dickinson off of Gilligan’s Island my mind will be at peace.
Hmph. Anyone who has toiled beyond 3rd-year college classes intended for those who hope to make math their profession will have noticed that every so often the prof or the lecturer will drop into the middle of some proof a statement about a necessary lemma which begins, “Clearly…” while waving his chalk at all 7 students. We all know to translate this as,
“We know that [writes lemma on board, possibly meanwhile reciting it]; but the proof would consume the entire quarter, and besides it’s far too esoteric for you dummies to understand.”
😆
I’m joking, but I’ve sat through an awful lot of math lectures that brought that thought to mind, and caused an inward rueful chuckle.
There’s a difference between “I’m so convinced that I think any other position on this topic is stupid and ill-informed” and “it’s not debatable.” I think people often mean the former when they say the latter. Most things really are debatable, even things most people agree on – professors argue with their students all the time about principles they’ve been certain of for decades.
I personally have a few political views that I’m completely convinced of, to the point that I’m not interested in being unconvinced. Supporting the Second Amendment, for example, or supporting the state of Israel. However, they’re still “debatable” as evidenced by the fact that those things are debated around me all the time.
Stephen Hopkins: “Well, in all my years I ain’t never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn’t be talked about. Hell yeah! I’m for debating anything. Rhode Island says yea!”
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1776/quotes/
I did a little research on Hopkins, and he is not exactly as portrayed in the play / movie, but I don’t doubt that, even if he didn’t say this in the context of the Declaration debate, he would have said something similar sometime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hopkins_(politician)#Continental_Congress