Facts vs Feeling
When debating, which is more or least important?
Why and how?
4
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
15 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
Both are important, if everything was entirely dictated by logic we would live like the AI we fear so greatly, if we lived entirely by logic the west would have obliterated the middle east and opposing ideologies with nukes. Heres a fact, if that were to happen 911 wouldn't have happened, which would be good so Outcome= good, and in a world dominated by feelings the process= terrible. So it's feelings and morality which keep us from murdering eachother, I believe star trek have done a good job outlining this dichotomy of why Logic and facts must work in a symbiotic manner with feelings. Truth is the facts and logic we are so proud of are carved into the flesh of emotion we detest. And truth, or our conscience seems to be a balance of logic and emotion, if the balance is tilted genocide will occur, both ways, so I would be pretty careful saying one is undoubtedly 100% of the time superior, both are necessary otherwise they wouldn't exist, and that can be viewed through an evolutionary lense too if you please. Any feedback is appreciated by the way, I am happy to discuss matters and to be shown an alternate method of viewing the world, so please I implore you all 
LukeHolyland
Level 4
Nov 3, 2019
1
rway:
There is a logical self-preservation argument for not killing each other, in holding ourselves to standards of conduct that in-turn protect us as well.
When debating... I guess it matters what the objective is.
When feeling good is the objective, feelings matter and logic only gets in the way. Feeling good is a selfish objective.
When doing good is the objective, logic matters and feelings only get in the way. Doing good is a selfless objective.
Raising the banner of compassion or empathy is easy, and often just a cop-out; the coward's way out.
It can be a no-cost, no-effort claim to being "virtuous", while really just hiding behind other people's feelings to avoid having to make any hard decisions.
That can make you feel good if you're sincere. And, even if you're not sincere it can at least make you look good to some people long enough to get out of the debate hall without having to make any actual arguments. 
Actually doing good, on the other hand, is often much harder and more complicated.
e.g., It doesn't feel good to watch your child struggling with something and not help them.
But doing it for them to make yourself feel good, never allows them to learn and to grow; which is ultimately a selfish thing to do, and is not good for them at all.
Sometimes you have to choose between feeling good and doing good, at least in the short-term. Ultimately, I think it feels good to have done good, even if you felt bad doing it. Delayed gratification is real gratification.
Accordingly, I believe that actually doing good is the only legitimately selfless and socially justifiable objective; which means logic wins.
Facts are great although not readily accepted by debating opponents who will always seek to discredit or cast doubt on their validity. In life, you are not always in possession of all the facts and you are forced to rely on gut feelings and moral code. Truth trumps all.
Thickasabrick
Level 2
Oct 14, 2019
1
I don’t think they have to be mutually exclusive. Cathartic concepts based in pragmatic notions could bring about positive points in realizing common ground.
4p3k
Level 4
Apr 24, 2019
1
Beautifully put my friend.
Feelings are the least important every time you debate. The other side doesn’t care about your feelings and you don’t care about theirs. So why do people debate with their heart instead of their brains? Just as bad as a man thinking with his dick all the way time. The ending will come out the same
Marydaniels6011
Level 4
Apr 24, 2019
0
feelings are why you vote, facts generate feelings..
@onlybecause12 Feelings also generate facts, two people can look at the same statistics and see and feel different things, and both could be equally as valid, however one course of action would yield the best results. Either way both are needed I think you got that. And the reasoning behind people seeing different subset of facts despite looking at the same thing runs deeper than preconceived notions, and deep into temperament and values based upon the temperament, my facts are not your facts, and your facts are likely his and her facts. And that truth is a fact to me, and its proven within psychological literature however another person can read that literature and see something different, and that may be beneficial.
"There's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right."
--Alexandria Occasional-Cortex
Wordmage
Level 8
Apr 24, 2019
1
Feelings can inform the emotional content of an interaction. Facts are great when attempting to come to solid conclusions.
Both are important, but not to be used interchangeably.
StephenHenkel
Level 4
Apr 23, 2019
2
Feelings. No fact you offer will persuade a disagreeable person who doesn't trust you, feel in some way kin with you. part of our problems currently are associated with most people feeling oppressed. Some have been persuaded that society is oppressing them, while others have persuaded themselves. Each have facts on their side. Neither will accept that their facts are wrong unless you get to them emotionally, first. In a debate, in real life, the only way to persuade is to make them feel doubt by being an example that draws into question their existing conceptions.
govols
Level 8
Apr 23, 2019
4
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.