More on debating
Further to my previous post on the merits of evasion as a debating skill.
Actually, having never participated in a debating society, I have no idea what constitutes a "good debate", at least in the formal, we-know-debating-and-we've-got-an-official-society-to-prove-it kind of way.
I searched the term and clicked on the Yale Debate Association to find that Yale puts videos of their debates online.
I still marvel at this use of technology: that I, or anyone with a pc and internet connection anywhere in the world, can watch at any time, say, the Harvard Finals from 2006.
2 comments:
I was in the high school debating society. Not exactly Yale, but we got free cheese sometimes.
I won Best Speaker quite often and ended up being awarded school colours for it. I was a "good debater" because of underhanded tactics like that, basically. In the context of a formal debate, where sides were given out arbitrarily and I was forced to argue in favour of things I disagreed with personally, like conscription and mandatory detention for asylum seekers, I say that fair's fair. It's about who's the best at arguing, not what they're necessarily arguing about. I'm sure the other teams detested the arguments they were lumbered with, too.
In a non-formal disagreement, though? I think it's dishonest, really. When debates break out, it becomes apparent pretty quickly who cares about the truth of the matter and who just wants to be right for the sake of being right. I've openly disagreed with other bloggers that I'm friends with, and we've discussed things and both come away with a new perspective on things. But the idea of being underhanded to win an argument, though... I don't really want to associate with people who prioritise their own pride over things that really matter.
I agree that the strategies used in a formal setting don't always translate well in an online context. Especially with blogging, where there's more of a spirit of transparency and conversation of ideas.
Post a Comment