5 ms·

In my opinion, this condemns the whole format. How you can trust any conclusion from a process that can so easily be undermined?

F2hP18Foam 3y ago
It's so tempting to give a trite "now you're asking the real questions" type answer, but I think it is possible if you become familiar with the kinds of rhetoric debaters use and evaluate how that lines up with the known facts of an issue. It is cognitively taxing to do, and for what it's worth I'm not great at it.
- kevinventullo 3y ago
  The problem is that most members of an audience are not familiar with that rhetoric, and end up believing whichever debater is better at executing it.
JohnBooty 3y ago
Well, it's not perfect, but it's probably the best we have. The adversarial trial format process assumes (hopes) that: 1. Both sides have competent lawyers that are doing the same thing 2. The judge prevents lawyers from going outside the rules 3. The jury is competent and is putting forth an honest effort 4. If misconduct is discovered after the fact there are avenues to a retrial (appeal, etc) We can look at many times where this system went horribly wrong. However I think it's fairly close to the best that can be hoped for. When all parties are competent and well-intentioned (not always the case, sadly) it is probably one of the strongest links in the legal system.
- jfengel 3y ago
  I would argue that #4 is where this fails most dramatically. Once you have been convicted of a crime, none of the "innocent until proven guilty" protections apply any more. You have very little recourse, even if you possess overwhelming evidence of misconduct. Appeals are, at best, very slow, and there is a good chance that you will be spending that time in jail -- during which time it is hard to prepare for your defense. And there is practically no penalty for a prosecutor who engages in misconduct. They hold immunity stronger even that that of police. There is effectively zero constraint on them to be honest. Many do it anyway -- they are not, for the post part, monsters. But if you encounter one who is, your rights were effectively forfeit the minute you walked in the door.
- kevinventullo 3y ago
  I agree it’s probably the best we have for the legal system where disagreements need to be settled at scale. I think it is not the best for deciding on a small number of very important questions, like “Who should be the president?” or “Is climate change real?”
  - JohnBooty 3y ago
    Yeah. I'm incredibly down on all forms of government TBH. None are suited for long-term thinking/planning.

F2hP18Foam 3y ago

It's so tempting to give a trite "now you're asking the real questions" type answer, but I think it is possible if you become familiar with the kinds of rhetoric debaters use and evaluate how that lines up with the known facts of an issue. It is cognitively taxing to do, and for what it's worth I'm not great at it.

kevinventullo 3y ago
The problem is that most members of an audience are not familiar with that rhetoric, and end up believing whichever debater is better at executing it.

JohnBooty 3y ago

Well, it's not perfect, but it's probably the best we have. The adversarial trial format process assumes (hopes) that: 1. Both sides have competent lawyers that are doing the same thing 2. The judge prevents lawyers from going outside the rules 3. The jury is competent and is putting forth an honest effort 4. If misconduct is discovered after the fact there are avenues to a retrial (appeal, etc) We can look at many times where this system went horribly wrong. However I think it's fairly close to the best that can be hoped for. When all parties are competent and well-intentioned (not always the case, sadly) it is probably one of the strongest links in the legal system.

jfengel 3y ago
I would argue that #4 is where this fails most dramatically. Once you have been convicted of a crime, none of the "innocent until proven guilty" protections apply any more. You have very little recourse, even if you possess overwhelming evidence of misconduct. Appeals are, at best, very slow, and there is a good chance that you will be spending that time in jail -- during which time it is hard to prepare for your defense. And there is practically no penalty for a prosecutor who engages in misconduct. They hold immunity stronger even that that of police. There is effectively zero constraint on them to be honest. Many do it anyway -- they are not, for the post part, monsters. But if you encounter one who is, your rights were effectively forfeit the minute you walked in the door.
kevinventullo 3y ago
I agree it’s probably the best we have for the legal system where disagreements need to be settled at scale. I think it is not the best for deciding on a small number of very important questions, like “Who should be the president?” or “Is climate change real?”
- JohnBooty 3y ago
  Yeah. I'm incredibly down on all forms of government TBH. None are suited for long-term thinking/planning.