What?

I am sorry, but do you really not understand the question?

What's the question?

Can you seriously not see the question in the OP?

It's not even a complete sentence.

I see a subject, verb and direct object.

Can debate entrench people in their views? — Jeremiah

Yes. There has been research that debates reinforce beliefs already held and do not dramatically change opinion.

An example:

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/elections/presidential-debates-effects-research-roundup

“On the Communicative Underpinnings of Campaign Effects: Presidential Debates, Citizen Communication, and Polarization in Evaluations of Candidates”
Cho, Jaeho; Ha, Yerheen Ha. Political Communication, 2012, Vol. 29, No. 2, 184-204. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2012.671233.

Abstract: “Previous research on presidential debates has largely focused on direct effects of debates on viewers. By expanding the context of debate effects to post-debate citizen communication, this study moves beyond the direct and immediate impact of debate viewing and investigates indirect effects of debate viewing mediated by debate-induced citizen communication. Results from two-wave panel data collected before and after the 2004 presidential debates show that, as previous literature has suggested, debate viewing leads to partisan reinforcement and that these debate effects are in part mediated through post-debate political conversation. These findings provide a new layer of complexity to our understanding of the mechanisms underlying debate effects.”

Thanks for the link, Bitter Crank. I will read that, and in fact I was trying to find something more authoritative.

I misread your OP. I thought you meant "can I debate those entrenched in their views", not "can debate itself entrench people in their views?"

I think there are several things at work:

1. As people watch the debate, they rehearse arguments to themselves that support their previously held opinions.

2. When people discuss debates with others who agree with them, this reinforces previously held views.

3. People seek out confirmation of their opinions (biases). After watching a Clinton/Trump debate, for instance, I would turn to my preferred media (like the NYT, In These Times, The Nation, etc.) for confirming opinion. I would not go to Fox News or some conservative internet site for debate analysis.

4. It isn't only the actual opinions that people hear that affect their opinions. Tone of voice, dress, facial expression, stage setting, audience reaction, and so on also affect how people respond to debates. For example, Clinton's voice became raspier (in my opinion) as the campaign progressed--most likely an effect of too much "yelling" for lack of a better word, leading to vocal chord irritation. Sanders voice, by comparison, was much less stressed. Ditto for Trump. I found Trump's face very unattractive. I liked Rubio's face the most of any candidate, but didn't and never would have voted for him. Bill Clinton's voice also became pretty stressed during his campaign in the 1990s.

Can debate entrench people in their views? — Jeremiah

I see entrenchment as the rule and not the exception. This or that belief is more or less entrenched, more or less sincerely questionable by its possessor (posessee?). Mean-spirited debate probably increases entrenchment. We don't want to grant an enemy the high-ground?

So the question is, are philosophy forum members equally as entrenched as the common rabble? ;)

In my opinion, we are as entrenched when it comes to our "fundamental" perspectives as the "rabble." But I'm speaking as an older man. While I've been through a fair number of "phases" or "ideological revolutions" in my life (especially in my crazy 20s), I haven't changed my "core" views significantly for more than a decade. My forum experience (here and elsewhere) indicates a similar process in others. We evolve a set of core beliefs that works for us and dig in.

Worse. Philosophers have more fire power in their armories to defend their entrenched positions. Not only that, they are entrenched about opinions that are 2500 years old. None the less, these dry, dusty issues are grabbed onto by the goats as if they were just cut and harvested yesterday.

>:O

Well, seeing that it seems that everything can be turned into a competition... and then a reality show with a panel of snooty judges, invariably including one judge from England... certainly. Yes, a debate can become a bitter win/lose ordeal where actually everyone loses, including the readers of said debate. I've noticed on this forum, the subject of "logic" tends to get competitive, with lots of algebraic looking statements and my eyes glazing over. Now, when the discussion is going back and forth, with polite disagreements, humor, insights, and sound reasoning; then it can be an inspired thing of beauty.

Some people change opinion, philosophers even, when truth matters more than the appearance or reputation of being right. Entrenchment in public debates, however, is sociological, a matter of defending positions, without giving them the benefit of doubt, and regardless of whether they're true.

In my opinion, and I'm not at all putting myself "above" this, philosophy tends to be ad hoc justifications/rationalizations of views that people already hold. A lot of views are already entrenched by some combination of disposition and early socialization.

But it's also important to remember that some people might be expressing views (a) that they've held for decades--maybe even 50 or 60 years depending on how old someone is, and (b) that they've already met and dealt with all of the standard objections to many times over.

People also have a tendency to assume that the people they're interacting with on a message board are just like them. So if someone is unsure of their view on something, or if they just formulated a view in the course of participating in a thread, if they've just now learned or thought of some well-known or cliched objection to a view, etc., there's often an assumption that the same goes for the other people in a thread. In that light, entrenchment might seem exaggerated, because one doesn't realize that the other person has had their view for many years and that they've already considered and responded to the same exact counter to the view tons of times over those years.

Some people change opinion, philosophers even, when truth matters more than the appearance or reputation of being right. — jkop

I agree, but I'd stress that few who identify with philosophy as a virtuous pursuit are eager to consciously "lie" to themselves or others. It's just that bias is increased by the threat of humiliation or loss of status. (Bias is something of a relative concept, however, since we presume to know the truth when we accuse those who disagree of a blinding bias. It looks like the sort of thing that an individual or a community finds in its past when not in another individual or community.)

In my opinion, and I'm not at all putting myself "above" this, philosophy tends to be ad hoc justifications/rationalizations of views that people already hold. A lot of views are already entrenched by some combination of disposition and early socialization. — Terrapin Station

Indeed. There's no blank slate. That's pretty obvious. Then there's no agreed-upon-by-all-thinkers set of axioms. Clearly it's not easy to agree on the meaning of terms. So it's something like a free for all within the limits of censorship. We just ignore those who are "unreasonable" according to our particular notion of reasonable.

While the "spine" of a worldview is almost never going to snap suddenly, the justifications do include modifications that address objections that the subject finds threatening to his system from within that system. This fits well with the notion that we require shared assumptions (overlapping systems, however "anti-systematic" or informal) to take the other seriously in the first place. When we don't feel sufficient overlap or respect, the debate becomes more like a sport than an inquiry. We're just keeping our claws sharp and our coats shiny...

few who identify with philosophy as a virtuous pursuit are eager to consciously "lie" to themselves or others. — R-13

To change one's opinion is not to lie.

bias is increased by the threat of humiliation or loss of status. — R-13

One effect of thought is that it tends to change one's opinion along the way, so I don't believe that bias is increased for a thinker to remain entrenched with his/her old opinions. But if you're a thinker at some authoritarian work place, a doctrinarian school, or group, then you typically risk being humiliated or losing your status. Bertrand knows why:

Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. — Bertrand Russell (Why Men Fight, 1916)

If you aren't entrenched enough, here is a tool that will help.

It can also be used in hand-to-hand panel discussions about philosophical concepts.

Sometimes I admit defeat in my positions and sometimes victory, but regardless, I often change my positions, if only slightly, due to conversing with other people on forums. In fact, it's one of the main reasons to post on a forum like this, imo. One can play around with different ideas and arguments in a somewhat casual fashion.

People are more or less entrenched in their views, and then they debate. Debating with others doesn't not often changes people's view, as far as I have observed. I think if people do change their views it is because fatal inconsistencies in them have been pointed out. But some people remain in denial and simply refuse to acknowledge the inconsistencies in their own views.

I think the point is that one can become entrenched in a view because one accepts and believes in the premises which serve as the foundation of the view. Think about atheism and theism. In a purely intellectual sense one is not more rational than the other, because the reality of God cannot be demonstrated or refuted. One can be a consistent atheist or theist; or an inconsistent atheist or theist. One might change views if it is discovered that their belief is founded on inconsistent conclusions rather than groundless (as all premises are) premises. Or one might modify one's conclusions to correct the inconsistencies and continue to believe more or less along the same lines as before. That is the main value of debating positions; to test you own and others' consistency.

Beautiful Russell quote.

As far as lying goes, I think we can sometimes look back on our previous beliefs and describe these in terms of our lying to ourselves. For emotional reasons we embraced now-questionable axioms or inferences. As our emotional investment shifts, axioms can fall away, inferences become "visible" or possible. I think we benefit by looking at thinking as a love affair.

For emotional reasons we embraced now-questionable axioms or inferences. — R-13

That's an odd claim.

Pluto, for instance, used to be a now-questionable 'planet'. Not because of "emotional reasons" but a convention to call such celestial bodies planets. But in 2006 the term 'planet' was formally defined (which it wasn't previously). Pluto and the like were thus re-defined as 'dwarf-planets'.

I don't think you see what I'm getting at. Consider, for instance, an individual or a community coming to regard the scientific method itself as authoritative. We might explain our former embrace of what now looks to us like superstition or prejudice in terms of wishful thinking or an irrational/natural trust of our parents or heritage. Sometimes we may plausibly blame our error-in-retropect on a lack of information, but the move away from God is probably more related to human technology and the confidence and abundance that came with it (an "emotional" argument). Essentially, I'm suggesting that human thinking is not cold calculation, although it includes cold calculation in pursuit of that which it desires.

I don't think you see what I'm getting at. Consider, for instance, an individual or a community coming to regard the scientific method itself as authoritative. We might explain our former embrace of what now looks to us like superstition or prejudice in terms of wishful thinking or an irrational/natural trust of our parents or heritage. — R-13

It was neither wishful, superstitious, nor irrational, to believe that Pluto was a planet prior the formal definition of 'planet'.

..the move away from God is probably more related to human technology and the confidence and abundance that came with it (an "emotional" argument)... — R-13

What's emotional about concluding that sanitation technology is more efficient than prayer?

Essentially, I'm suggesting that human thinking is not cold calculation, although it includes cold calculation in pursuit of that which it desires. — R-13

But who suggests that human thinking would be cold calculation?