The perfect debate

[Bruce]

I've made allusions to this on other threads, but I'll be more blunt about it here. Has anyone here ever read or listened to a perfect debate? By a perfect debate, I mean one in which:

1. No fallacies of any kind were used.
2. Both parties were consistant and did not divert from the issue.
3. Both parties attacked only the issues and not the other's crediblity, personality, or other non-issue related faults.
4. Both parties used evidence in which both parties agreed originated from reputable sources.
5. The issue at hand was resolved, and it was clear to both parties and supports who won the debate.

I would contend that if you debated everything by the rule book, you would be unable to debate at all, or at least the audience would fall asleep before it was over.

 

[CFLarsen]

I win this debate!

 

[crimresearch]

That isn't what debates are for.

Debates are to teach high school kids and budding lawyers and journalists how to take either side of an argument, and win points in a contest, using any tactic neccessary...including fallacies, and name calling.

It is verbal rugby.

 

[CFLarsen]

But seriously....

It could be interesting to see such a debate. We would, however, need some way of determining who was winning.

 

[aerocontrols]

I've seen it sometimes in debate in high school.

What you need to make this happen:

Make sure neither side cares about the underlying issue.

And Either

Both sides are aware that using certain tactics to win will be held against them by a judge who also doesn't care about the underlying issue.

OR

Neither side actually cares if they win. (unusual in competitive debate)

 

[crimresearch]

I've seen it sometimes in debate in high school.

What you need to make this happen:

Make sure neither side cares about the underlying issue.

And Either

Both sides are aware that using certain tactics to win will be held against them by a judge who also doesn't care about the underlying issue.

OR

Neither side actually cares if they win. (unusual in competitive debate)

I confined my competitive nature in high school to oratory and music contests, and quickly decided that the judges knew less about the rules than anyone in the room...
I wouldn't be surprised if debaters felt that the risk of losing through use of illicit tactics was minimal, and carried that feeling over to 'adult' debates.

 

[aerocontrols]

I confined my competitive nature in high school to oratory and music contests, and quickly decided that the judges knew less about the rules than anyone in the room...
I wouldn't be surprised if debaters felt that the risk of losing through use of illicit tactics was minimal, and carried that feeling over to 'adult' debates.

Yeah, most judges were clueless about the rules.

Most teams knew which judges were with clue, however. A common judge around our tournaments was a retired HS debate teacher, for instance. Her husband judged sometimes, too, and he also knew the rules.

 

[CFLarsen]

Do we want a debate for debate's sake?

Or do we want to settle an issue? (however temporary it may be)

 

[Jocko]

I've made allusions to this on other threads, but I'll be more blunt about it here. Has anyone here ever read or listened to a perfect debate? By a perfect debate, I mean one in which:

1. No fallacies of any kind were used.
2. Both parties were consistant and did not divert from the issue.
3. Both parties attacked only the issues and not the other's crediblity, personality, or other non-issue related faults.
4. Both parties used evidence in which both parties agreed originated from reputable sources.
5. The issue at hand was resolved, and it was clear to both parties and supports who won the debate.

I would contend that if you debated everything by the rule book, you would be unable to debate at all, or at least the audience would fall asleep before it was over.

That would be like a climactic courtroom scene without anyone bellowing, "Objection, your honor, objection!" Booooring. And Al Pacino would never take the part, so where does that leave you?

 

[aerocontrols]

Re: Re: The perfect debate

That would be like a climactic courtroom scene without anyone bellowing, "Objection, your honor, objection!" Booooring. And Al Pacino would never take the part, so where does that leave you?

Ben Stein could do it.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've made allusions to this on other threads, but I'll be more blunt about it here. Has anyone here ever read or listened to a perfect debate?

Actually, yes. I just had one over lunch. I won. Of course, it was about a purely technical matter, and neither of us had any stake in the answer other than intellectual curiosity, both of which helped immensely.

 

[Jorghnassen]

Do we want a debate for debate's sake?

Isn't that the point of the internet?

/firm believer in a certain Penny-Arcade theory...

 

[PogoPedant]

Indeed I have been witness to a perfect debate. Several, in fact. Disputes over Dungeons & Dragons rules all of them.

 

[Jorghnassen]

Indeed I have been witness to a perfect debate. Several, in fact. Disputes over Dungeons & Dragons rules all of them.

You obviously haven't been visiting D&D forums...

 

[gnome]

Most D&D rule debates I've been in end with "Regardless of what the book says, as the DM I'm ruling that it's done this way."

 

[crimresearch]

What Bruce is looking for *used* to be described by the word 'Argument'..to make clear.

1913 Websters:

2. A reason or reasons offered in proof, to induce belief, or convince the mind; reasoning expressed in words; as, an argument about, concerning, or regarding a proposition, for or in favor of it, or against it.

3. A process of reasoning, or a controversy made up of rational proofs; argumentation; discussion; disputation.
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=argument


And 'Debate' is of course derived from the root 'to beat' similar to 'battle'

1. To engage in combat for; to strive for....

2. To contend for in words..... to dispute; to contest; to discuss...
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=debate


Now on many levels the words can be used interchangeably...but 'Argument' used to have more of a connotation of intelligent, reasoned, and polite exchange of information on a topic, hopefully until proof was reached.
And 'Debate' used to have more of a connotaton of conflict and winning a contest for the sake of winning.

Over the years, 'Argument' has picked up more of a reputation as meaning an unpleasant verbal fight, and 'Debate' has come to imply a controlled set of logical exchanges.

Go figure.

 

[Bruce]

...but 'Argument' used to have more of a connotation of intelligent, reasoned, and polite exchange of information on a topic, hopefully until proof was reached.

No, it didn't.

 

[crimresearch]

Listen buddy...don't pull that stuff with me!!

 

[Bruce]

Listen buddy...don't pull that stuff with me!!

 

[webfusion]

perfect debate

You guys are looking in the wrong direction.

For a perfect debate, just eliminate any questions from the opposition. And issue your own made-up 'facts' and 'truth' to the media, so there is a large body of 'evidence' and 'sources' to back up whatever you decide to say.


What, that's a lousy idea? Ask the people running this country -- they seem to think it's a very wonderful plan, as reported in USA Today (link).
(NOTE: This is not intended as a knock to the President or the GOP, just an interesting point to add to this thread, considering the title)

Shaken by raucous protests at open "town hall"-style meetings last month, House Republican Conference Chairwoman Deborah Pryce of Ohio and other GOP leaders are urging lawmakers to "chuck the open town-hall format."

• The shift in venues and formats is aimed at producing "more of an erudite discussion" said US Senator Rick Santorum, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. (translation: no public discussion forums)
  
  
  The Republicans "like staging events in front of strictly partisan audiences," says Tom Matzzie, MoveOn's Washington director. "They're trying to create political theater in the place of political discussion and debate."