This forced me to rethink my communication skills and try to change my approach of conversing. I've found that people who understand those concepts can use them to their advantage and benefit immensely in all sorts of settings.
> I have had problems with people thinking I'm arguing or
> attacking their ideas, when I am only looking for a
> debate and a more thorough view of their ideas and
> line of thinking.
Consider that people in oppressed groups (women, victims of sexual assault, ethnic minorities) have had their legitimacy questioned and denied throughout most if not all of history.
And then along comes you, the noble truth-seeker. Probing and questioning their views. Looking for logical holes. What wonderful subjects these people make for your rhetorical sparring!
The reality is that your intentions are good but from their perspective, chances are that you sound pretty much the same as the last few millenia of people that have shouted them down and questioned their legitimacy. Give them room to express their views, even if you think they're wrong, because this is something they are often denied the right to do.
The solution is simple but not easy. Make sure you're listening and reading a hell of a lot more than you're speaking and writing.
I 100% believe your intentions are good, by the way. Just understand that intent is not magic.
Everyone should have a platform to safely express their opinions, but if their opinions are incorrect then they should be challenged and debated. Statements shouldn't be protected from scrutiny just because they are being uttered by a woman or a minority.
First, I like the distinction between dialectic and debate. It's possible to learn more about someone's point of view through asking interested questions and (together) exploring where their beliefs lead, without necessarily challenging them in a debate sense. Debate often means scoring points using non-logical rhetoric. Dialectic is more the spirit of being on the same team, exploring a point together, and I don't see it as less efficient in any sense.
Second, normative conclusions (as most opinions are) are a combination of moral axioms and a bunch of logical syllogisms. I think an opinion can be judged "incorrect" in two ways. First, they are reasoning badly from their premises (valid but unsound). That can be fun to explore in a dialectic sense to see if the logical framework can be tightened up or if the conclusion can be modified. But the other common way an opinion can be "incorrect" is if it soundly, logically flows from moral axioms (values) that you simply disagree with. And those sorts of axioms aren't correct or incorrect by definition. This is usually the appropriate time to agree to disagree, or respect where the other person is coming from.
But either way, this all requires having a certain level of empathy or respect for your counterpart's point of view and intent.
Precisely this. Granting special exemption from the normal process of discourse and debate is infantilizing. Treating someone as your equal and expecting that they are capable of defending their ideas is not wrong, particularly when they share their ideas in the public sphere.
> if their opinions are incorrect
When we're in the realm of issues like racial inequality, gender relations, etc - I'd be really cautious about deeming anybody "incorrect."
These are issues that have challenged humankind as long as we've been on this Earth, and we haven't exactly worked out any ironclad solutions yet.
In any case, this lead to micro conflicts I wasn't aware of and so poor relationships.
Your solution is spot-on. I had such difficulty following through, that I literary tied up a piece of red string on my left wrist to remind me of conflicts and my unmindfulness. Nowadays the Internet is my battleground for heated debate :)
That said, it definitely bugs me when someone comes to be "looking for a debate", so that may be why people have reacted negatively. I can generally tell when someone's genuinely concerned with an issue, and when someone wants to provoke me into a debate. I prefer not to spend much time with people who do the latter.
However, I recognize that we may be understanding the term "debate" differently here. To me, the emphasis in a debate is on the debating prowess of the participants. Whereas in a discussion, the emphasis is on the issue to be solved. You may well be referring to what I think of as a discussion.
Often this is done by playing devils advocate or by playing dumb and getting the other people to really explain their viewpoint. I do this too when I either don't properly understand what is being presented and I want to encourage others to flesh it out and explain it in a way that I get it, or if I see the ideas as being too vague or risky and I want to make sure all of the pros and cons have been properly considered. Often I will then concede, because the idea really was a good one, but sometimes I dig in if I feel like it isn't being resolved.
I'd say I go looking for a discussion in these cases, but its not up to me to judge - only other people can tell you if I do it tactfully or not. I'll make an effort not to be too confrontational.