Firstly, I guess this debate is more of a conversation than an actual debate based on the way I am talking here, at least according to the way I ascribe to the definition of what a debate is. But at least I have the balls to admit this haha.
Anyway, when several people think of radicals they are thinking of Islamic extremists but it's not just those that are guilty of this. There also exist other religious as well as political extremists too. I think some can be de-radicalized but intervention needs to happen very early such as during the actual radicalization process for any success. However, for some, I think they are too far gone and no amount of intervention will be of any help at all.
What do you think?
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
Our thoughts are therefore relative, they are only extreme in regards to others.
When you make an effort to deradicalize someone, you are simply trying to move them closer to the center, or the average of all beliefs. This is not only unnecessary, it can be dangerously wrong. Consider what may have once been a fringe theory, for example cigarettes causing cancer, but is now considered mainstream average and those who think that cigarettes don't cause cancer are the extreme minority. If we had considered those who rang the bells a radical extreme, then their ideas may not have been readily accepted.
That being said, there is something that differentiates the true ideological extremist from the average citizen, and that is openness to new ideas and ways of thinking. When someone puts actual effort into deciding what is and is not a good way to do something or organize society, and makes an effort to discover as many different ways of thinking as possible and as many different ideas as possible, it is nearly impossible to become beholden to just one in any absolute way.
What is most important is that people are open to new ways of thinking and are not close minded. The best way to deradicalize someone is to prompt them to consider the other's perspective by reaching the same conclusions independently. This is typically best done through the asking of leading question and asking questions that give no answers but force the person to find answers themselves that may not be in line with what they originally thought.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: different ways    good way   actual effort   example cigarettes  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Happy_Killbot I think you've made a great argument here. However, regarding the last sentence, I am currently not sure if I can either agree or disagree about leading questioning at the moment. So, I will suspend judgment on that until after a little more reflection.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: different ways    good way   example cigarettes   popularity of a given opinion  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
An example of a neo-nazi far-right extremist who gave up his beliefs after 20 years.
People can be deradicalised and it's never too late.
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 54%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.88  
  Sources: 3  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: example of a neo-nazi    right extremist   beliefs   years.People  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
There are two books that lead me to draw these conclusions, one is a work on negotiation by a CIA negotiator based on field experience, Never split the Difference by Chris Vos, and the other is A manual for creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian. Both Use a method which is roughly the same as the Socratic method but with extra features that are designed to reach a specific goal.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: superior ways    field experience   Socratic method   extra features  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
I am also reminded of the TV show criminal minds here too.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 66%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: superior ways    CIA negotiator   field experience   Socratic method  
  Relevant (Beta): 29%  
  Learn More About Debra
I couldn't put one of those "watch-a-may-callums" on your original. Couldn't say it was fallacy, irrelevant, agree or disagree or even informative … certainly not "funny". I think the human mind is mostly out of our control and more in the control of circumstance. A single happening can turn us into something we weren't before. Until we become educated enough to know things like Fascism, racism, false gods and settle on a single type of governance that is advantageous to all and not controllable by a few, we will always have radicalism. Maybe by the 25th century?? If we aren't destroyed by radicals by then???
Until then you could pray, or actually DO something. I'll certainly not see it, but, good luck anti-radicals … wherever you are. ;-)
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
I see no reason why those which hold extreme views cannot change their mind. In fact, I'm sure I could find many examples of this happening. I see two ways to make this happen: by force or by choice. I would generally not be in favor of the former.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: extreme views    nbsp   fact   examples of this happening  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
I certainly experienced a lot of pressure to conform with the mainstream culture when I was growing up in Russia. I was a very naughty freedom-loving boy who constantly got in trouble for his loose tongue and daring behavior; developed a strong social phobia as a result of intense peer and adult pressure, but never changed my mind. Many people like me did change theirs.
Radicals and extremists are who moves this world forward. Now, some of them move it in the wrong direction, and those need to be taken care of. But, at the end of the day, every major accomplishment has been made when someone said, "You know what? Maybe we have been wrong all the while, and the world does not work the way we thought. What if it works this way? Can we capitalise on it?" Conformism does not produce anything novel, it merely provides a foundation for radicals and extremists to build a new world on.
As such, de-radicalising anyone does not seem like a worthwhile goal to me. Quite the opposite needs to be done: people need to be taught that they are unique and special, and that it is okay to try things everyone else thinks are insane, as those are the only things that have a potential to change the world.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra