Futility of debates

 I have been thinking about futility of debates and arguments. Recently I was engaged in a debate. It is still ongoing. I will explain the details of the debate first and then write my thoughts on futility of arguments. 

In early November I attended an ethics committee meeting. (I am a member in the committee) We reviewed research proposals to decide whether the proposals describe the ethical conduct of research. Specifically, we had to look after the best interest of the research participants in these studies. We had to ensure that they are not being exploited, no harm is being done to them, their rights and safety is protected.  If there are any issues that we identify then we provide our recommendations to the researchers to modify their research in the best interest of the people who will participate in the study. 

 

It was an online meeting of 3 hours. I attended the meeting from home. One of the studies that was proposed was a public health program. The organization was providing health education to persons in the community on a particular health condition, through WhatsApp messages. They want to take the data from the WhatsApp message system and analyze, (1) how many people were reached, (2) how many people opened the message, (3) how many people read it and engaged with it and so on. The program went on for 3 years. During the first 1.5 years it was a simple program, and it went on smoothly. Then they realized that this is useful data as thousands of people are using the WhatsApp messages. So, they decided that from that point forward they will collect the data and use it for research. They would analyze the performance of the intervention and study its effectiveness. So, they started getting the consent from the participants from that point forward to use their data for research purposes. The researchers presented this and asked the ethics committee to waive the requirement for a consent for all those who used the WhatsApp messages during the first 1.5 years of the program. They want to use their data for research, so they asked the ethics committee to give a letter waiving the need for the consent to use their data for research. 

 

I was not willing to waive the need for consent. My argument was, people using WhatsApp, or utilizing it for health education purposes, must know that their data is being used for research purposes. They may have objections to it being used this way. They must have a say in it. It is their data; it is their right and it must be their decision whether they want to give their data for research purposes. But the researchers argued that going back to all the thousands of people who used this WhatsApp message in the past and contacting them and getting consent is not practically feasible. Moreover, there is no harm in using their data for research purposes. Their identity will not be revealed outside, so what is the harm? Given the existing crisis of privacy in the social media era, I was not comfortable with providing such a blanket waiver of consent. The debate went on and on. 

 

Both the positions – my position of respecting the individual and their privacy and ownership of their data, and the researcher’s position of impracticality of obtaining consent and the benefit of the research findings to the larger society are both valid. When the debate is so balanced and there is no way to rule on either side, a moral impasse happens. I think such debates end up being futile because beyond a certain point the debate is more about defending one’s stand rather than moving the discussion towards a result. I keep finding more points to support what I am saying, and they keep finding points to support theirs. I found myself reading literature, identifying papers that support my argument and using them to advance my debate. 

 

The interesting thing about searching the internet for support of our arguments is that there is enough out there to support any argument. The researcher got enough papers and arguments to support their stand as I got to support mine. Beyond a certain point, the debate moved from philosophical position to strength and veracity of arguments. It became less about the idea and more about how the arguments and points were articulated. The louder voice, the stronger enunciation, better vocabulary and such matters started influencing the direction of the debate rather than the core philosophy. 

 

Yesterday a friend called me to ask my opinion on adjudicating a student debate which they have been invited to moderate. They asked me, “What if the most convincing arguments are from the side that is opposed to my own personal view on the topic? Do I judge based on strength of the arguments or my stand on the topic?” It was a very tough question. I told them that I would judge based on what I think is the right stand in that topic. If someone speaking against my opinion on the topic is placing strong arguments and seems to be a good debater, I would probably give them a special mention as a great debater, but that would not make me modify my take on the topic. I told them, “The judgment should be based on what is the ‘right thing’ and cannot be based on ‘convincing arguments’ made by the speakers”. But thinking back, this advice seems flawed. 

 

I can apply the same argument as in my debate with the ethics committee to the issue of judging the student debate. My point of view is privacy, rights and autonomy of the participants, whereas the researcher’s point of view is benefit to the larger society by publishing research findings and less than minimal harm to the individual. There is no way to conclude in this debate either based on moral position. The best thing would be to go towards a decision that is midway between both the positions. Giving a judgment in a debate that both the sides have some merit is probably not the most popular judgment. The organizer of the debate may not be able to give the reward to all the participants! But that is the nature of some debates and arguments. They are characterized by equipoised positions on either side with absolute futility of leaning towards either. 

 

In this context, I read a verse in the devotional poetry titled “Kandhar Anubhuti”. The title means the experience of Muruga, the God! The 15^th century Tamil saint and poet, Arunagirinathar composed the Thiruppugazh, which is said to have about 16,000 verses, but only about 1334 of them have been recovered from palm leaf documents. Thiruppugazh is sung in praise of Lord Muruga, the Tamil God. He has also composed the Kandhar Anubhuti. The Kandhar Anubhuti comprises of 51 songs, set to a beautiful rhythmic meter. The meter is called Venba in Tamil poetry. The words are punchy and rhythmic, which gives it a characteristic that is easy to sing and dance to. Not only that, the rhythmic nature of Venba makes it easy to commit to memory. In Kandhar Anubhuti, in the song number 32 the poet says:

“கலையே பதறிக் கதறித் தலையூ

டலையே படுமா றதுவாய் விடவோ?” 

The meaning of these lines is something like this - Intellectuals and scholars who are learned and who know the arts, argue, debate, engage in discussions and defend their thoughts and ideas with all the strength that they can muster. But this is futile. Lord, liberate me from this! 

 

This is a very meaningful verse and I stumbled upon it at a very important juncture. What is considered knowledge today will be proven to be wrong tomorrow. What is ethically appropriate today may become unethical tomorrow. Knowledge, science, technology, ethics, everything evolves with time. Given this transient nature of knowledge, what is the point in engaging in debates? It is a core epistemological question on what is knowledge, how is this knowledge obtained, what is the nature of knowledge. This is the fundamental questions Arunagirinathar asks in this deeply introspective poem. The experience of God should help us realize that these debates are after all futile intellectual engagements and ways to pass time. The true purpose and meaning of life emerges from introspection and engagement with the self. If there is anything that can be changed, it is only the self. For that change in the self to happen, the debate and discussion must be an introspective process. 

 

In this new year 2026, I pray to God to grant me equanimity of mind. I pray that I realize when the right time is to talk, and when to remain silent. For it is in silence and stillness that I can find God within myself and peace.