3 ms·
IMHO the traditions of debate are more analogous to boxing than say, philosophy - a competitive endeavour, emphasising technique and effectiveness rather than a
by xyzzy123 3y ago
IMHO the traditions of debate are more analogous to boxing than say, philosophy - a competitive endeavour, emphasising technique and effectiveness rather than a truth-seeking activity per se.
I think this is a legimate point of view despite the underlying hint of nihilism.
Some traditions emphasise restrictions on the kinds of tactics you're allowed to use (e.g. pure demagogy or deliberate use of convincing fallacies are frowned upon) and I can't help but think of these as like queensberry rules vs mma...
- evrydayhustling 3y agoI like the analogy but I think there is an important difference: the issue settled in a boxing or MMA match starts and ends in the ring, but the issues covered in debate are social policies that depend on external truths and impact participants. TFA gets into this in its last section about debate's impact on politics. Is it great to train a class of leaders based on competitive technique and effectiveness rather than external reality or support?
- morelisp 3y agoIn reality very few elected leaders participated in policy debate. They mostly end up policy wonks, software developers, or bloggers.