|
^ 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. The Greeks & Romans from whom we've inherited our debate and rhetorical practices thought that eloquence and the quality of the debater's speech was at least as important as the underlying rationale for argument. People, too, will be more likely to believe a charismatic speaker with weaker logic rather than an anti-social pedant. Are we betraying the classical principles of debate when we turn it into, essentially, two robots finding minute flaws in the other's logic? Ought debate to be a performance art, and if not, then how can it not be?
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2008 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 14:57 |
|
|
murklins posted:Calling out logical fallacies is a great idea, perhaps it could be expanded by calling out cognitive biases too? All of this logocentrism is in earnest but I think it's misplaced, and if you have a debate that gives itself wholly to logic without admitting rhetoric, you will have a very boring and dry affair. Remember that the main point of debate is to educate the audience: the debaters probably won't change their position but if they communicate well (pathos) and in logically consistent ways (logos) their position may increase in popularity. Appeals to emotion have always been a big part of debates, and I don't think our emotions ought to be discounted: we have inherited them, they guide us a lot of the time, and it's silly to try and disregard them for logic. So I'd say the OP's "debates of art" are as legitimate as "debates of fact".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2008 00:06
|
|