My take on debate

[Maxmars]

Frankly, debate has a very odd public image.

I imagine the imagery surrounding debate is terribly afflicted with bad examples.  Most of them are provided to the public via the showmanship of media exploitation.  We often see abundant examples of "poor" debate in the public venues of the internet.  Popular talking heads are featured prominently in internet monetized 'clips' which announce in their titles with taglines like "So and so crushes such and such."  Usually, no such 'crushing' ever takes place, and the 'producers' simply appeal to the presumed love of one side or the others' bias.  Most times there is not enough within the content to provide a basis to interpret the exchange as a debate at all.

Other examples feature something which is also not really debate at all. Our "political" debates are not even close. The moderators are weak, more concerned with form than function.  The participants are campaigning, not debating.  To add insult to injury, they aren't even addressing each other's points, just jabbing and engaging in populism and showmanship.  Theater... you gotta love it, right?

Less thoughtful debaters are often thwarted by their own inability to stay away from attacking each other personally.  And some even can't fathom that the topic is more important than opponent. They will casually use phrases like "You are just like a ...." or "People like you..." sadly considering a good quip or funny meme "a winning blow."  There is place and time for such things, debate is not one of them.  Name-calling, hyperbolic characterizations, extreme misinterpretations are all things we used to never accept except in activist journalism... and even then, it was recognized as opinion... now it seems it is sought after, and exalted as if it were a circus act... entertainment for its own sake.  While debate can be entertaining, and even feature tremendous humor and wit, it will always be relevant to the central subject.
 

---

“In all debates, let truth be thy aim, not victory, or an unjust interest.”  ― William Penn

---

In practice, debate is about cooperation. Part of the matter is accepting from the onset that each participant has an object to explain one side of the argument.  Each will assist the other by diligently addressing their opponent's argument directly, asking focused questions for response, acknowledging not only their opponent's problematic points, but their own as well. More often than not, both sides learn something, and any lucky audience can benefit from the exchange.  I've seen debate winners that never 'proved' their point, and I've seen debaters who did, and still 'lost.'

It doesn't work all the time.  Sometimes debates are about issues which transcend, in part, pure reason... because that is how life works... lest we be robots.  But debaters are not 'competitors' exactly.  Like craftsmen creating something, they each contribute to an edifice.  A building of some worth, for those interested in the topic especially.  The result can be strong, beautiful, or rickety and weak... it's the effort that shines.

"Fun" debates can be silly, or not.  "Serious" debates can be enthralling, or not.  Debate isn't necessarily about what the debaters believes, or the truths they individually hold to.  It's about the manner in which they can muster an argument... whether they can be cogent, direct, and efficient in defending or promoting their cause.
 

---

There's always merit to having a debate.  -Ward Churchill

---

 

---

It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it. - Joseph Joubert

---

Soon we will be launching our debates here at Deny Ignorance...  My hope is that we start small and work our way to the heavy topics... I think suggestions are in order, and nothing is off the table.  I will give some example ideas... none of which are at all especially provocative... but I'm never one to shy away from the thrill of provocation.  I tend to accept the underdog side, just because that's my preference, but I suggest you give it some thought...

I'm not certain that this particular thread is the right place to submit suggestions, being made of my own musings, I will inquire if we can formalize a destination for all your ideas...

Now ... on with some examples of debate topics...

Nursing Homes in America should be regulated by the government.
Abolish and reestablish all political parties.
Pet owners should be 'certified' before becoming responsible for pets.
Parents should be 'certified' prior to parenting.
Early schooling should include civic study as a prerequisite.
Media News services should publicly announce everything they report as an "entertainment" production.
Public representatives should have no privacy "in office."
The death penalty is murder.

These are just 'spit balling' ideas, and not really my suggestions for anyone to jump on (unless they want to,) but you get the idea.
 

---

This country is about, in my judgment, aggressive, open debate.
There is an old saying: When everyone is thinking the same thing, no one is thinking very much. - Byron Dorgan

---

[Maxmars]

In my 'newness' to Deny Ignorance, I originally posted this thread in the "Debate Forum" not realizing that only "Fighter" members can post there.  

Silly mistake, since I was hoping to engage in a discussion about the topic... and it needs to be accessible to everyone.  

I hope anyone who wishes to discuss the ideas will find this here, and feel free to jump in!

I would love to hear from members about how we can cultivate good debate... and what debate means... (I mean the kind of debate you absolutely can't find anywhere else... because most of what passes for 'debate' outside of our community is largely garbage.)

Thank you for your patience....

[DBCowboy]

A debate on Biden vs Trump

Or abortion.

Lets start a fire!

 

[sprocketuk]

A debate on Biden vs Trump

Or abortion.

Lets start a fire!

 

Yeah, both of them should have been :D

[Maxmars]

A debate on Biden vs Trump

Or abortion.

Lets start a fire!

 

 Can you imagine just how useless such a debate would have been?!  I can't conjure up a waste of time more empty.  Exactly what could the point be? Who hates or likes one or the other more?  Who can craft the most offensive or most fawning words?  Nearly everything a debater might profess would be off-point and run afoul of any manner of actual meaning except of course, "how I feel."

I would ask (going along with your suggestion) what possible question or statement of premise would be addressed by a 'politician v. politician' as topic debate?  Which is better?  Which thinks what?... 

They are, in this context - clowns, performing for attention, inflating themselves, taking credit for anything they can, casting blame for everything else.  If the point of a debate is to "inform" an audience... what does the audience actually ever learn?  

Hell, even they can't really debate...and  they certainly never have in public, and I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that they have never in their lives actually debated anyone about anything.  Public debates in American politics are wastes of time (thank you producers) made to 'satisfy' egos, and make money.  All the "TV debate" productions are smarmy, 'campaign' events with no actual 'discussion.'  They are NOT EVER actually moderated... just stage 'directed.'

Debating about political personalities has even less value than debating about college sports teams or who has nicer "hair."  There is a real problem in the idea of debate nowadays because of the monetized political theater... and media exploitation...  I would wager that among the people who still think in this world, most have never witnessed an actual debate, let alone a formally constrained and moderated debate.

I prefer to debate something definable, a real thing... not a "show."

[Nerb]

A debate on Biden vs Trump

This forum is for serious discussion and I doubt that would happen if debating a couple of juvenile comment exchangers with so many unknown factors we couldn't consider properly. Although it would be nice to involve politics in debates on occasion, it would also be nice to keep major Politics elsewhere me thinks.
----------------

The idea of a debate here is attractive to me because I am not an academic who grew up with a standardised learning curve and often struggle with focusing on studying a subject beyond an initial encounter. I am a creative thinker who rarely sticks to a plan but sees one as a guideline for things as they unfold around me and always open to evolution.

That said, debating something would be a great way for me to keep coming back to a subject with a commitment to stay focused and see it through until the end while at the same time learning and expanding the old grey stuff. A good opportunity for research too.

Regarding the subject matter, I do like the concept of "Parents should be 'certified' prior to parenting". I have thought for many years that procreation as a human entitlement can be the root of so many negative things and for many people, not just the creators. It also affects the whole world over time in a way that is hard to measure in much but unconnected statistics after the fact. A philosophical approach would be useful to provoke the thoughts of others and extend the timescale for considerations.

I enjoyed the first debate here and it was cool coming back to read each response as it unfolded. Nothing too extreme but plenty of food for thought and very civilised.

Perhaps pencil me in for a debate at a later date so I can observe others and build up some confidance. My ADHD is my enemy but also my adversary.

Thanks Maxmars for sorting the thread so we can respond and discuss.

[DBCowboy]

Yeah, both of them should have been :D

​​​​​​​ ​​​​​​​ ​​​​​​​

---

 Can you imagine just how useless such a debate would have been?!  I can't conjure up a waste of time more empty.  Exactly what could the point be? Who hates or likes one or the other more?  Who can craft the most offensive or most fawning words?  Nearly everything a debater might profess would be off-point and run afoul of any manner of actual meaning except of course, "how I feel."

I would ask (going along with your suggestion) what possible question or statement of premise would be addressed by a 'politician v. politician' as topic debate?  Which is better?  Which thinks what?... 

They are, in this context - clowns, performing for attention, inflating themselves, taking credit for anything they can, casting blame for everything else.  If the point of a debate is to "inform" an audience... what does the audience actually ever learn?  

Hell, even they can't really debate...and  they certainly never have in public, and I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that they have never in their lives actually debated anyone about anything.  Public debates in American politics are wastes of time (thank you producers) made to 'satisfy' egos, and make money.  All the "TV debate" productions are smarmy, 'campaign' events with no actual 'discussion.'  They are NOT EVER actually moderated... just stage 'directed.'

Debating about political personalities has even less value than debating about college sports teams or who has nicer "hair."  There is a real problem in the idea of debate nowadays because of the monetized political theater... and media exploitation...  I would wager that among the people who still think in this world, most have never witnessed an actual debate, let alone a formally constrained and moderated debate.

I prefer to debate something definable, a real thing... not a "show."

We need a Trump surrogate and a Biden surrogate to debate

[Maxmars]

This forum is for serious discussion and I doubt that would happen if debating a couple of juvenile comment exchangers with so many unknown factors we couldn't consider properly. Although it would be nice to involve politics in debates on occasion, it would also be nice to keep major Politics elsewhere me thinks.
----------------

The idea of a debate here is attractive to me because I am not an academic who grew up with a standardised learning curve and often struggle with focusing on studying a subject beyond an initial encounter. I am a creative thinker who rarely sticks to a plan but sees one as a guideline for things as they unfold around me and always open to evolution.

That said, debating something would be a great way for me to keep coming back to a subject with a commitment to stay focused and see it through until the end while at the same time learning and expanding the old grey stuff. A good opportunity for research too.

Regarding the subject matter, I do like the concept of "Parents should be 'certified' prior to parenting". I have thought for many years that procreation as a human entitlement can be the root of so many negative things and for many people, not just the creators. It also affects the whole world over time in a way that is hard to measure in much but unconnected statistics after the fact. A philosophical approach would be useful to provoke the thoughts of others and extend the timescale for considerations.

I enjoyed the first debate here and it was cool coming back to read each response as it unfolded. Nothing too extreme but plenty of food for thought and very civilised.

Perhaps pencil me in for a debate at a later date so I can observe others and build up some confidance. My ADHD is my enemy but also my adversary.

Thanks Maxmars for sorting the thread so we can respond and discuss.

I look forward to the opportunity to provide you with a good debate experience.  I am not so focused on the seriousness of it, because I have found that it is often a matter of perspective and self-evaluation.  Even the lightest subject can take on the form of a heated and significant debate.  And I have seen some terribly momentous topics well-explored with humor and dignity-evading flair.  It's an like an alchemical mystery, as people often are.

I will be posting here a poll soon.  There will be a series of premises... a bit more robustly explained.... and anyone interested can vote on what they think might be the most desirable "next" debate.  I welcome discussion. 

I might have some debates in mind that will be "outside" that list... which is to say that the debate challenges are practically unlimited.

At some point, we'll probably delve into 'harder" and or 'darker' topics which won't lend themselves to a 'casual' approach.  But such topics that require diligent thoughtfulness... we want to avoid simple "he says" "she says" exposition... Fruitful debate is about thinking it through.

Here is an example that is pertinent since you stated "I do like the concept of "Parents should be 'certified' prior to parenting".  Such a debate opportunity requires presenting to allow for some constraint.

"Parents should be 'certified' prior to parenting"

In such a debate:

One side will pursue justifications and rationale behind the idea that the responsibility of nurturing a child should be reserved for those who have a solid understanding of what challenges they will face, and also what challenges they might face.  Knowledge of the tools at their disposal, the social ramifications of their conduct, and the well-being of their children should be formally introduced to the parent... and that their understanding of those things must be evaluated, or at least 'certified.'  That failure in this area of life have repercussions that present a risk to the innocent, and can have long-lasting and serious effects. 

The Opposite side will have to evoke the notion that parenting isn't a "skill" but an "art"; one at which humans have been relatively successful for literal ages.  That the social and cultural constructs which have naturally evolved over the course of human existence are not generally "quantifiable" nor likely to improve by imposing a purely social construct of "middlemen" regimentation, that it is "inorganic" to construct or overlay on a purely human and natural activity.  That humans cannot be 'regulated' into better parenting.  Perhaps they may be forced to 'protect' those who 'fail' in the eyes of others; and to highlight that cultural differences 'demand' respect.

Add to this challenge that anyone wishing to explore it in debate will not know which position they will be support...  but the exercise demands an honest attempt.

Of course, there is a world of people who are way smarter than me... and any debater might discover another way to argue this.  Hopefully, you get the gist of what I am describing.

I will consider you as a next candidate for the Fighter designation...

Do we have any other takers?

[DBCowboy]

I'll do it.

I used to debate on ATS back in the day. . . . .

[Maxmars]

I'll do it.

I used to debate on ATS back in the day. . . . .

Oh yes, I remember it well.  Thank you kindly for joining the project... (I wish I could send all the fighters a mug or something, but our community isn't well-established yet, and such things are out of reach.)

Now for a topic....

Debate topic suggestion thread on the way...