Intuition and Rational Debate [CF Article]

If you’re coming up with a bunch of new ideas on your side during a debate, that’s an indication that your views were half-baked. The other person wasn’t helping you do that, so you could have done it alone without him before debating.

I somewhat frequently have the experience of coming up with ideas that seem new to myself in discussions or while reading things. I don’t feel like I have much idea stability with explicit convinctions.

Should average people be suspicious that almost all their ideas about philosophy topics are half-baked? What about other complex topics like politics, economics, interpersonal relationships, etc.? I’m referring to people who haven’t done much introspection, and can’t claim to have mastery in topics outside of everyday living. It seems like extremely few people can claim mastery over any complex subject or even any narrow sub-discipline.

META-COMMENT/QUESTION: What is a good comment/context to question ratio? Are comments that are mostly quesioned-based generally better, worse, or the same as commments without questions?

There are other concerns people should express in debates but don’t. Then they try to concede without getting those problems addressed first.

How can people work on a specific problem like conceding debates early when that problem might have deep underlying causes? It seems like the conceding debates problem could involve conflict avoidance, fear of rejection, secondhandedness and other issues that would require huge effort to improve significantly.