The major problem in America today is that too many people get stuck in one mode. Either they remain resolved without adequate pondering or they ponder endlessly, never resolving nor learning anything.
When "journalists" avoid "bias" they can take that too far, never resolving or learning anything.
When "politicians" establish definite goals they might be built on assumptions that are not, or no longer are, valid or pertinent for not being thought through.
The public debate itself, which is the pondering of the unresolved in order to reach a resolution, is surprisingly unpopular these days. Most people seem happier stuck in their "identity" as resolved or pondering. It's "be like me because I'm resolved, vote Republican" or "be like me because I'm innocent of resolution, vote Democrat". There's no real debate, just shouting matches. Although most Republicans are convinced what is right and wrong, sometimes insufficiently pondered notions creep into the list or good notions get misapplied. While most Democrats are willing to accept most ideas, sometimes notions shown to be mathematically impossible creep into the list and often at the expense of the true right.
To be the best debater I can be I ponder things to the felicitous end of pondering. And I highly recommend the practice to all journalists, politicians, Democrats, Republicans, theologians, automobile mechanics, maintain at home moms, dental hygienists, indeed an emphatic everyone.
You might protest at this point that there are some things that cannot be resolved, where there is no felicitous end of pondering. As a demonstration of how steadfast I can be I will attempt here a resolution of the "liar's paradox." Many will recall that in an episode of the original Star Trek a variation of the liar's paradox burned out a computer named Norman. Some think Star Trek originated the idea. It rather has a long history at least to ancient Greece.
The core problem in the liar's paradox is to evaluate the truth of the statement, "This statement is false."
Perhaps it is already obvious how a simple computer program could loop indefinitely in search of an answer.
Quite many problems in debate can be made more manageable by careful initial definitions.
Start with these two: (1) Truth is a member of the set of meaningfulness and (2) Falsehood is a member of the set of meaningfulness.
The positive, "the ball is red," and the negative, "the ball is not blue," each have meaning.
We will need another set. Call it the set of meaninglessness, containing members not in the other set. Define contradictions as members of the set of meaninglessness: (3) Contradictions are not, in their entirety, members of the set of meaningfulness.
That is, a single statement that contradicts itself is meaningless, and paired statements that contradict each other are meaningless in their combination.
We have now obtained a degree of resolution of the liar's paradox, "This statement is false," in that contradicting itself makes it a member of the set of meaninglessness and neither true nor false.
But here's where the fun begins.
To which set does "This statement is meaningless" belong?
There seems to appear some iota of truth in the mere "fact" of its meaninglessness. We were given that truth is a member of the set of meaningfulness (1).
The best answer though is that the statement is a member of the set of meaninglessness, which like all the other members of that set are "real" illusions or "real" examples of, or members of, meaninglessness.
Standard rules are that, "the debate team which contradicts itself forfeits." To "forfeit" is to present no meaning.
Furthermore "This statement says nothing" does in reality say nothing. The notion that nothing is a "something" in some other context is a redefinition of terms which is not allowed in the context at hand. Redefining terms can make all sorts of statements phase through truth and falsehood.
But wait there's more
If only life were so simple as to have only truth, falsehood and meaninglessness. We need yet another set. You may call it my "Christmas present" to the Democrats. It is the set of the poignant. This requires changing the definition of meaningless from simply not meaningful to not meaningful nor poignant. Define poignant as context changing. (You can redefine poignant elsewhere.)
The Dao that can be told is not the eternal Dao. (ala China)
The wise man says, "not this and not this." (ala India)
This statement is false. (ala Greek peripatetic schools) Otherwise meaningless this one is elevated to poignant for its place in history, and when dealt with skill.
Take care not to read too much into my meaning. (ala Hollywood)
I can't walk with your feet, turkey. (ala New Jersey)
A more skeptical attitude would serve you better. (ala grade school)
In the end, truth is more a process. (latest update)
Positives
the ball is red
Negatives
the ball is not blue
Contradictions
Forfeitures of meaning
Miscommunications
Rejecting an old context
Begging a new context
Identifying miscommunications
And I hope you find this resolution most felicitous. If you can do better, go for it.
I am sorry if you found it tedious. I believe and hope it can expand your insights into people, who they are and to which parties and religions they belong. Or where they drift. Especially yourself.
Expanded March 26, 2012
Okay, let's do one more exercise. Atheists have been complaining about "omnipotence" and using definitions that no religion anywhere depends upon. So let's clear that up.
Can God make a rock too heavy to lift?
If he can't he isn't omnipotent.
If he makes it and can't lift it, he isn't omnipotent.
True or false?
It comes down to the definitions of words. Try this variation.
Can God limit himself?
If he can't he isn't omnipotent.
If he can then he wouldn't be omnipotent.
What we see here is that an omnipotent being can do or not do absolutely anything but all you can do is complain about the timing.
And consider the definition of "omnipotent." If it means "not limitable" then by that definition the being would still be omnipotent if it "failed" too limit itself.