Welcome to Gaia! ::

But there's a difference between debate, say, between politicians, and debate the game/art form. The sad fact is, the large majority of people are easily swayed by flawed arguments, so people who are arguing a point need to do so in a way that is effective. In those types of circumstances (your lawyer example was a good one, for one), it's still anything but pointless: words hold power, pen is mightier than the sword and all that. That's what I like to think of as propaganda debate: you're barely actually interacting with your opponent at all, the purpose is to put on a show for whatever audience you happen to be performing to. And it works.

Propaganda debate is not pointless, but is a bit sad and hollow... Whereas intellectual debate is IMHO, much, much cooler. In a situation where you're called on to defend a position regardless of what you believe, where it is considered bad form rather than effective tactics when you spend your entire time lambasting your opponents... Well, that's what I would consider to be real debate. It could be argued that arguing for the sake of arguing is pointless, (although I'd argue that point) it is actually very good in terms of learning public speaking and logic (if you don't go for formal logic, - the math is beautiful, but only if you like math) and you really learn to see as many facets of an issue as possible - you have to, in order to set up a good argument.

Okay, done gushing now. Sorry.

Seriously, though, my feeling is that debate is completely useless, but serves two almost completely contradictory purposes depending on the context, which can make the whole form look shallow and pointless when taken out of context.

Taking this back to your television example - you spoke of "a popular subject of debate". Generally, this implies something with vested interests of all sides, and generally an issue in which emotions are pretty high, certainly for the people most involved in the issue. So this is an example of propaganda debate, and what's more, since (I assume - correct me if I'm wrong, please!) these people were not politicians, nor had any actual debate training, most of their personal attacks were quite likely not actually attempts to win the argument so much as straightforward "I don't LIKE you", personal attacks. Which has little to do with debate as a form (either type), and much more to do with high emotions and the fact that people who are deep in a particular side can't really see clearly.

(Sorry if that was kind of ramble-y. I do that. wink )

The people that most class as professional debaters are just disguising their personal attacks behind logic that's totally off topic, which sways the mind of the third parties when it shouldn't. This works for subjects that aren't of any great importance, but for example, when it's a matter of someone's life in a trial, if you can get a good enough lawyer and convince the jury of something that you want through poking flaws in the others statement and letting the jury miss the points at hand. They're making the decisions for the wrong reasons.

By saying that the people in the debate I gave as an example were bad debaters is just doing exactly what I've made this thread about. Mind you the people who they brought into the debate weren't random people off the street, they went straight to the sources and brought them there to debate. They're good debaters, but debating isn't all it's cracked up to be. That's what I'm saying.

I want the general population to be able to get their priorities right.

Most 'debates' in my eyes are just arguments, no goals attached. You say a few people debate incorrectly when it's easily the majority. My point is to try to get people to really pay attention to how the people around them are debating, to take in the real points and to make the right decision on a subject for the right reasons.

Most people that I've talked to don't acknowledge how bad the debates are, and they'll be swayed by people who lack logic in their beliefs. I want it to change. Or at least be recognized and not denied.

Of course it's with people. Debate is something created by people, for people. We need to change how we do it. I can't just sit back and say debating sucks, and leave it at that. That's not productive. It's the people debating that need to go about it differently. How can we fix something, if we're not even aware it's there.

You're talking about me being misanthropic, and by doing so, you're doing exactly what this thread's trying to stop. Who cares if I'm being misanthropic? That's totally besides the point, and doesn't change the points I've been making. You're looking for flaws to poke in the messenger, opposed to responding to the points at hand. Maybe you can convince me that I am and I might stop. But I'm not the only one that thinks this, so respond to the points.