5 ms·

The whole debate format has been broken forever. Improving people's ability to competitively argue for things they don't believe in seems a hilariously bad idea

The whole debate format has been broken forever. Improving people's ability to competitively argue for things they don't believe in seems a hilariously bad idea. This stage seems like a marginal improvement, with the biggest con being that it's more anti-rationalist. Rationalism isn't a panacea, but one needs to master it in order to effectively argue post-modern critical theories. Competitive debate has always sucked and apparently still sucks.

rahimnathwani 3y ago
"Improving people's ability to competitively argue for things they don't believe in seems a hilariously bad idea." Why? One consequence might be to improve your ability to steelman an argument with which you disagree.
- rutierut 3y ago
  Fair point that is useful, but the majority of people never steelman anything, a significant amount of people will even refuse to steelman anything on moral grounds. Strawmanning on the other hand…
- goodpoint 3y ago
  Pushing for competition instead of rational thinking is bad. Learning steelmanning is just one minor benefit.
tekla 3y ago
> Improving people's ability to competitively argue for things they don't believe in seems a hilariously bad idea. If you can't argue in the affirmative of the other side, you probably don't actually understand the topic to being with, and are probably not very good at critical thinking.
- rutierut 3y ago
  I completely agree with this. If you’re arguing against trickle-down economics you should know where people arguing for it are coming from and be able to phrase it in a manner that its proponents agree with. This also happens to be one of the most (holistically) effective techniques irl when “debating” with someone.
  - vacuity 3y ago
    Sounds like Chesterton's fence. "Tear it down!" "OK, but can you give me a good reason to?" "...It's an obstruction." "Reeeeeal persuasive." Even if the other side has abysmal reasoning, you won't be able to distinguish that from decent arguments if you blindly try to push your side of things. Besides, establishing common ground is key to cooperation.
tsuujin 3y ago
> Improving people's ability to competitively argue for things they don't believe in seems a hilariously bad idea. I disagree with this so very much. High school debate was foundational for my adult ability to recognize that nuance exists. Arguing a position that you don’t personally believe in, and winning, is a massively useful tool in understanding that for the majority of topics there are reasonable, intelligent, and acceptable arguments for both sides. This is a trait seeming missing from most other adults I interact with. Too many people accept blindly that there is a correct and incorrect position and no room in between.

rahimnathwani 3y ago

"Improving people's ability to competitively argue for things they don't believe in seems a hilariously bad idea." Why? One consequence might be to improve your ability to steelman an argument with which you disagree.

rutierut 3y ago
Fair point that is useful, but the majority of people never steelman anything, a significant amount of people will even refuse to steelman anything on moral grounds. Strawmanning on the other hand…
goodpoint 3y ago
Pushing for competition instead of rational thinking is bad. Learning steelmanning is just one minor benefit.

tekla 3y ago

> Improving people's ability to competitively argue for things they don't believe in seems a hilariously bad idea. If you can't argue in the affirmative of the other side, you probably don't actually understand the topic to being with, and are probably not very good at critical thinking.

rutierut 3y ago
I completely agree with this. If you’re arguing against trickle-down economics you should know where people arguing for it are coming from and be able to phrase it in a manner that its proponents agree with. This also happens to be one of the most (holistically) effective techniques irl when “debating” with someone.
- vacuity 3y ago
  Sounds like Chesterton's fence. "Tear it down!" "OK, but can you give me a good reason to?" "...It's an obstruction." "Reeeeeal persuasive." Even if the other side has abysmal reasoning, you won't be able to distinguish that from decent arguments if you blindly try to push your side of things. Besides, establishing common ground is key to cooperation.

tsuujin 3y ago

> Improving people's ability to competitively argue for things they don't believe in seems a hilariously bad idea. I disagree with this so very much. High school debate was foundational for my adult ability to recognize that nuance exists. Arguing a position that you don’t personally believe in, and winning, is a massively useful tool in understanding that for the majority of topics there are reasonable, intelligent, and acceptable arguments for both sides. This is a trait seeming missing from most other adults I interact with. Too many people accept blindly that there is a correct and incorrect position and no room in between.