2024-11-29 04:23:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
import{d as o}from"./chunks/git.data.BcrWSzMU.js";import{M as i,q as n,Q as e,K as r,u as t,ag as s,p as l}from"./chunks/framework.Sr2_9k8k.js";const h=e("h1",{class:"p-name"},"Debate",-1),d=["innerHTML"],u=s('<hr><details><summary>Referenced by:</summary><a href="/garden/no-politics-rules/index.md">"No Politics" Rules</a></details><p>Debate takes many forms, but for this article we're going to group them into three categories, and argue why none of them work towards actually finding the best solution to a problem. These categories are going to be structured debates, public debates, and conversational debates.</p><h2 id="structured-debates" tabindex="-1">Structured debates <a class="header-anchor" href="#structured-debates" aria-label="Permalink to "Structured debates""></a></h2><p>These are the formal debates held in academic contexts and tournaments. These have predefined formats like Lincoln-Douglas or Oxford style, and have the explicit goal of one of the individuals being judged as the winner not based on having the correct stance or even making good arguments, but for their performance in the debate, dictated by their charisma and rhetoric and ability to respond quickly.</p><p>While specific formats vary, many of these debates are filled with <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5133664/user-clip-gish-gallop-explained-mehdi-hasan" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">gish galloping</a> and other rhetorical flourishes. Gish galloping is when a debater speeds through many arguments with the goal of overwhelming the adversary, as its easier and faster to make unsubstantiated claims than it is to contest them. This is a common technique not just in structured debates but all debates. If you're ever watched Ben Shapiro debate (and you have my sympathies), you've seen the gish gallop technique in action.</p><p>These debates are adversarial by design, and there is no opportunity for constructive discussion aimed at arriving at the correct conclusion. The people participating in these debates certainly prepare greatly for arguing their positions, but additionally learn a great many skills and techniques unique to the formal debate format.</p><p>It should likely go without saying, but this is clearly not meant to be how new ideas are formed or how solutions get created. This is an academic exercise completely divorced from actually solving the problems in our society. The debates are not intended to influence people or impact policy. The skills developed here do not translate to collaborative problem-solving environments.</p><h2 id="public-debates" tabindex="-1">Public debates <a class="header-anchor" href="#public-debates" aria-label="Permalink to "Public debates""></a></h2><p>Public debates are debates held by public figures, such as the presidential debates or debates involving political pundits like Ben Shapiro or Cenk Uyghur. They don't have judges or formal winners and losers. Similar to structured debates, these are adversarial debates that don't aim to form a consensus by the end of the debate. Instead, the goal here is for each debater to improve public sentiment towards themselves.</p><p>Gish galloping and its companion <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK4RHzNHZXY" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">reverse gish galloping</a>, whereby a flaw in one specific point is used to dismiss the entire argument, are commonly used here, alongside ad hominem attacks and other fallacies. Since the goal is to change public perception, appeals to emotion work greatly here.</p><p>As before, these are not intended to change the minds of either participant. They may influence the audience to view a participant or their position more favorably, but this isn't some victory for the "free market of ideas" - the influence is still tied more to the participants' charisma and rhetorical skill rather than the correctness of their position. Several on the left have argued against the utility of these debates, debate culture, and "debate bro" influencer
|
