4 ms·

See, I loved debate for all the reasons you disliked it. It was a game and seemingly everyone knew that - it was never touted as an exercise in truth-seeking. T

See, I loved debate for all the reasons you disliked it. It was a game and seemingly everyone knew that - it was never touted as an exercise in truth-seeking. The truth one discovers in debate is through their research, not in the round itself.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
I just wished they called it something besides "debate". It made it cannoying for those of us who were actually trying to organize a club around debating issues.
- wlesieutre 9y ago
  I'd like to propose "Fast Arguing Team"
  - twic 9y ago
    "Like Guitar Hero But For Arguing"
    - wlesieutre 9y ago
      I like this, it captures the "this has a superficial resemblance to arguing with someone, but really there's not much in common." Potentially shorten to "Argument Hero"?
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    At this point, they should just teach rhyming and rebrand as rap battles.
- NikolaeVarius 9y ago
  We called that "Model UN" And you do debate issues, just very very quickly and efficiently.
Kuiper 9y ago
One of the problems with treating debate as an exercise in truth seeking is that it is a competition between two "sides." In that context, there is little room for phrases like "I will concede that..." or other things that we might associate with intellectual honesty and a pursuit of the truth. I don't think this necessarily points to any inherent flaw with the competition, either. The goal of a debate participant is not to discover the "truth," it is to defend the side of the debate you are assigned (and over the course of several rounds against multiple opponents, you will inevitably find yourself alternating between sides). It's similar to arguing in a courtroom: as a defense attorney, your goal is not to discover the "truth," but to get a "not guilty" verdict for your client, even if you believe (or know) them to be guilty.
bdcravens 9y ago
> The truth one discovers in debate is through their research When I was in debate (mid-90s) most research was on paper - you'd have a brief with cut out photo copies ("cards") with the words to read underlined. If you weren't at one of the big schools, you were at a disadvantage, as the debaters themselves weren't seeking any truth in their research; they had teams who just cut every card imaginable. The goal, as in spreading, was just to overwhelm your opponent. (More baffle them with bullshit than dazzle them with brilliance)

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago

I just wished they called it something besides "debate". It made it cannoying for those of us who were actually trying to organize a club around debating issues.

wlesieutre 9y ago
I'd like to propose "Fast Arguing Team"
- twic 9y ago
  "Like Guitar Hero But For Arguing"
  - wlesieutre 9y ago
    I like this, it captures the "this has a superficial resemblance to arguing with someone, but really there's not much in common." Potentially shorten to "Argument Hero"?
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  At this point, they should just teach rhyming and rebrand as rap battles.
NikolaeVarius 9y ago
We called that "Model UN" And you do debate issues, just very very quickly and efficiently.

Kuiper 9y ago

One of the problems with treating debate as an exercise in truth seeking is that it is a competition between two "sides." In that context, there is little room for phrases like "I will concede that..." or other things that we might associate with intellectual honesty and a pursuit of the truth. I don't think this necessarily points to any inherent flaw with the competition, either. The goal of a debate participant is not to discover the "truth," it is to defend the side of the debate you are assigned (and over the course of several rounds against multiple opponents, you will inevitably find yourself alternating between sides). It's similar to arguing in a courtroom: as a defense attorney, your goal is not to discover the "truth," but to get a "not guilty" verdict for your client, even if you believe (or know) them to be guilty.

bdcravens 9y ago

> The truth one discovers in debate is through their research When I was in debate (mid-90s) most research was on paper - you'd have a brief with cut out photo copies ("cards") with the words to read underlined. If you weren't at one of the big schools, you were at a disadvantage, as the debaters themselves weren't seeking any truth in their research; they had teams who just cut every card imaginable. The goal, as in spreading, was just to overwhelm your opponent. (More baffle them with bullshit than dazzle them with brilliance)