|
For the vast majority of issues, there's just no way to have the sort of debate you're talking about. I do competitive university debating and picking good topics is a huge pain in the rear end, and the topics we do end up debating over aren't the big important ones like abortion or religion. Why? Because when people, even really smart logical people, debate over (e.g.) abortion, it generally ends up coming down to them debating over whether a fetus is "alive" or not, or whether there is a soul, or what exactly the definition of "life" is, etc. There is no singular "abortion debate" because the fundamental disagreements are over other, related issues. It ends up being really messy and kind of frustrating for everyone concerned, since the ground of the debate shifts all over the place. The same thing happens with religion debates, and drug legalization debates, and IP debates. That's why university debating uses smaller, carefully contained topics where the grounds for conflict are a lot more clear-cut. edit: it bears mentioning that these sorts of complicated, vague debates over big issues are also the most likely to end up with both parties throwing up their hands and saying "We could be having a good debate here if you would be rational and logical!"
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2008 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
deptstoremook posted:^ I think and hope the OP is talking about regular /"layperson" debate such as between two individuals or two candidates, or something like that. Competitive HS/university "debate" (in the US, at least) has a whole other slew of problems and shortcomings that make it unusable in any practical situation. Well US debate is hosed, the sooner you guys all switch to proper Parliamentary styles the better. Seriously, you're right that competitive debate is pretty useless at actually hashing out a correct answer to a question (which is what we're trying to do in any argument, right?). But so is regular debate between two individuals, or even between multiple people on a forum. We all know how often it happens that someone actually concedes defeat in an argument over current events or politics, i.e. never. In fact, how many important issues have actually been settled by one-on-one debating? None that I can think of. I don't see how what we do at D&D is any more usable in a "practical situation" than university debate. At least university debating has judges. There's an entire discipline devoted to arguing over these important, fundamental issues. It's called philosophy. Stereotypes aside, philosophers have answered a lot more questions than debaters on an internet forum (not that that's saying much, but still). That's because instead of arguing in brief sentences face-to-face, or even in 200-word posts, philosophers argue in essays and books, and take centuries to decide whether, say, the existence of God can be proven a priori (they decided it can't!).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2008 00:53
|
|
|
Megatheory posted:IMO this happens because the debaters usually rely on talking points while totally misunderstanding the other person's point of view. This is part of the "ego vs. truth" problem. you're right, but debating really lends itself to those sorts of misunderstandings. Two people arguing in person aren't going to spend hours beforehand working out what exactly the grounds of debate are, what their precise stances are, what premises they both agree on, etc. Online it's a little better but not much. That's why misunderstandings and confusion arise so easily, because people go into it with the attitude that "we're going to argue over abortion!" instead of "we're going to come to a decision about which criteria an organism has to meet for it to be sufficiently alive to warrant our protection."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2008 01:05
|
|