Playing To Win: Debate in the Modern Age - It's about sending a message.

[The Sauce Boss]

I consider myself to be somewhat educated. I'm no genius or anything, but I enjoy studying history, political theory, and psychology, among other things, and one part of my ongoing education that I find myself rather enjoying- enjoying the principle of, anyway- is debate. The act of meeting in the middle with someone who has one, or perhaps even multiple, disagreements with you and hashing it out in the open marketplace of ideas.

However, I can't help but feel that in my lifetime, the purpose and nature of debate has shifted farther and farther away from intellectual honesty. As I understand it, the purpose of debate is to progress- to come to a greater understanding about the issue being debated through mutual discourse via the presentation of evidence, reasoned argument, and logical inference and summation of the data, arguments, and ideas presented. While there is some merit in attempting to convince your opposition that your position is right, and theirs is wrong, this was not the point of the discussion, rather, the point was to walk away from it all having progressed the understanding of the subject matter further than where it was when you left it, regardless of who was 'right or wrong'.

Now, debate seems to me like a children's game on HGH. It is no longer about education and progress, it is about 'winning'. Owning the libtards or BTFO bigots. There is no desire to change opinions, to educate, or to further the discussion of systemic issues such as the abuse of constitutionally-granted (and non-constitutionally granted) power by our elected and non-elected government officials, the merits of accusations of systemic racism in our criminal justice system, or even such matters as the right to proper abortive medical care, the right to die, and same-sex marriage. Bad-faith arguments and logical fallacies are no longer guidelines to go around to avoid derailing or devaluing the argument, they are a pamphlet full of buzzwords that you throw at the other side while trying to bamboozle the other side into a SNAFU so you can say, 'ha! look at the retard opposed to me, who argues his point incorrectly because he made one spelling error, didn't cite a source for a specific opinion he holds, and is now frustrated by my complete and utter lack of respect for the spirit of debate, due to my constant bombardment of him with fluff and buzzwords such as racist/NPC/communist/socialist/crony capitalist/etc.'

Is this recent bent towards intellectual dishonesty a recent development? Why is it so appealing?

 

[The Pink Panther]

Because people view politics like sports.

 

[It's HK-47]

Debating has been the realm of jerks and smart-asses for a very, very long time. The methods and the vehicles might get shuffled around, but that spirit of trying to just make the other person look like a retard never goes away and probably never will.

 

[break these cuffs]

The MSM and social media have become platforms for pure agitprop. They are now rage porn for you to get angry at the other side and told how good of a person you are for your beliefs. There were certainly guys like Rush Limbaugh back in they day, but they were the exception and not the rule. Every celebrity needs to throw in their two cents. Every business needs to virtue signal in the hopes they don't get cancelled and maybe get a few extra shekels. The interactions have largely shifted to online where things are far less personal. I can still have conversations with friends and family who I disagree with politically with only two exceptions that have full blown TDS.

 

[DumbDude42]

As I understand it, the purpose of debate is to progress- to come to a greater understanding about the issue being debated through mutual discourse via the presentation of evidence, reasoned argument, and logical inference and summation of the data, arguments, and ideas presented.

that's how debate works between people who are fundamentally on the same page, and who debate among themselves in private.

but any 'debate' that is intended to be publicized is not like that. instead, it's about scoring propaganda points for your position. and it is especially not like that when the participants are fundamentally NOT on the same page - when one sides starting point and motivation is literally "i hate you, your people, your race, your country, i want you all dead and gone" then there simply is no debate or discussion to be had. a proper conversation requires a certain degree of good faith, which simply does not exist with people who are outright hostile to their opposition on such a fundamental level.

 

[The Sauce Boss]

Because people view politics like sports.

View attachment 1529302

Debating has been the realm of jerks and smart-asses for a very, very long time. The methods and the vehicles might get shuffled around, but that spirit of trying to just make the other person look like a retard never goes away and probably never will.

While that may be the case, this behavior wasn't 'normal', I should say, at least not to the extent it is now. The Cynics, while more in line with modern shitposting sensibilities than I would honestly have ever expected from Greek antiquity, inherently were trying to present a life philosophy and idea through the forum of reason. When did that stop being the aim? Why did it stop being the aim? Why has debate simply become a propaganda platform and a field for gaining brownie points from your allies instead of actually changing anyone's mind?

 

[It's HK-47]

While that may be the case, this behavior wasn't 'normal', I should say, at least not to the extent it is now. The Cynics, while more in line with modern shitposting sensibilities than I would honestly have ever expected from Greek antiquity, inherently were trying to present a life philosophy and idea through the forum of reason. When did that stop being the aim? Why did it stop being the aim? Why has debate simply become a propaganda platform and a field for gaining brownie points from your allies instead of actually changing anyone's mind?

Because human beings are not rational and unfeeling machines and they never will be. Conflict and emotion are at the absolute core of the human experience and any model that tries to dismiss or downplay the root of what makes a human a human is going to fail. This is especially true if your beliefs can no longer form a coherent and reasonable argument. If you can't win a debate on your ideas because your ideas are too flawed to survive in a hostile environment, what's your incentive for playing by the rules?

It is infinitely easier to manipulate emotions than it is to guide someone through a structured, nuanced, and rational thought. If you fall on the latter side, then welcome to the curse of even moderate intelligence. Everyone is idiot, everyone's always been an idiot, and humans are an amazingly idiotic and sometimes brilliant species. Some of the oldest records in human history are fart jokes and "Halfdan was here" because human beings do not change. They try and preen themselves up to strut around every once in awhile but at their core humans have been giggling at farts for tens of thousands of years because humans are dumb and silly.

The best advice is to just be more like the Cynics and Diogenes because at least they were having fun.

 

[Sperghetti]

I don't know how recent it is in the broader sense, but there's a long online tradition of people who enjoy being inflammatory and riling others up over sensitive topics using the term "debate" as a shield for their antisocial behavior. As long as I can remember, there've always been those people who toss out some sort of obvious political/religious bait and then when they catch flak for it, defend themselves with "Guys, I'm just trying to have a debate here!" As if that makes people believe that obvious smug trolling is somehow intelligent and thoughtful.

Not to mention official, televised political debates being talked about as if they have a clear winner and loser, instead of being two candidates clarifying their positions on things. Both of these phenomena have been going on for so long that to many, "debate" is simply another word for "heated argument".

 

[Francesco Dellamorte]

Consensus rule, either through democracy or by threat of popular revolution, means that only the lowest common denominator needs to be convinced/pandered to/manipulated. Doing anything more nuanced has a worse ROI and will give your opponent the edge.

Case in point: I stopped reading your post after the second sentence and just put forth my position in three sentences.

 

[SIGSEGV]

OP is a faggot, therefore he loses the debate.

 

[The Sauce Boss]

OP is a faggot, therefore he loses the debate.

Disregard that, I suck cocks.

 

[SIGSEGV]

Disregard that, I suck cocks.

I know you do.

 

[Francesco Dellamorte]

OP is a faggot, therefore he loses the debate.

Dammit, just one sentence. I should've aimed higher lower.

 

[The Sauce Boss]

Dammit, just one sentence. I should've aimed higher lower.

when they go high, we go rock bottom my guy.

 

[rotten apple]

You say the ends do not justify the means, but as soon as the ends are within reach of one of the participants that little sprint to "got mine, fuck you" looks much more appealing. When what was a debate suddenly has asymmetrical payout, it universally is about going for the jackpot. Who bothers to televise a debate to just win an argument in comparison to advertisement and capturing the hearts of the audience. Yet the real goal of it all is to have enough of a majority that even the justification is just a token used to browbeat a helpless opposition.

The most horrifying truth of the world is when everyone is beaten off the fence, one side will be larger. The larger side typically wins. So it all devolves into manipulating everyone off with you being on the larger side.

 

[Getting tard comed]

'Debate' has never been a constructive exercise. If it was you'd be having a conversation. The goal of any debate(multiple parties, multiple positions) is to convince an audience your position is correct. The easiest way to do this is rhetoric. Aristotle wrote a whole book on it you might find interesting names Rhetoric. Most people are not capable of understanding non emotion based information, dialectic, so emotion based language, rhetoric, is better to use when convincing an audience you are correct.

The issue isn't that debate in the modern day has changed, it's that the level of rhetoric needed to 'win' has lowered substantially debates usually aren't worth their weight in entertainment value.

 

[Melktert]

It's simplification of political theory for normies and niggers. retards can't comprehend politics, so they dumb it down to be inclusive.

 

[Malagor the dank omen]

I mean... Schopenhauer already put this shit into a fine example with his book "The art of being right".
Being right is not about constructing good arguments or being confident in your beliefs. It's about destroying your opponent. Either his arguments or his schemes in such a way that if victory is impossible to you, his victory will not be a good one.

 

[Kosher Dill]

As others have already pointed out, debate was always imperfect at best, but I do think it's gotten worse as people learned to game the format of the modern televised debate more and more, and our standards for public behavior have plummeted. To the extent that debate ever worked, it was because there was a sort of gentlemen's agreement that participants would more or less play by the rules and take the process seriously. There are no gentlemen in 2020.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Is this recent bent towards intellectual dishonesty a recent development? Why is it so appealing?

The essential change is the removal of persuit of objectivity. Sometimes people need to accept that 2+2=5. And that requires a lot of opaque deconstructionist reasoning, where people are afraid they're seen as dumb if they don't get it, the way Milo was the only commentator brave enough to comment on some of Jordan Peterson comments "I don't know what he's talking about", because for wvery insightful or half verboten truth Peterson told,there was also a claim that was vague or mystical. In a way that nobody could be sure what he meant, but everyone could ascribe a different personal meaning.

Of course these are very recent examples and this has gone on for at least half a century in universities, taking an ever bigger role. They're gunning for the 2 genders biologists crowd now. There is just a near complete retreat to subjectivity. A tower of babel where none speak each other's language because we've been abandoning an attempt even at objectivity. It infects nearly every realm of discourse.

Of course culture and genetics play a role as well. The idea that there is value in personal debates is very olympics and very european, with only a handful examples outside it.

As europeans are in decline, so is debate.

Here are american debate winners.

The best and brightest

"Debate" American Style: Our Top Orators in Action

Find out why this video was suspended from YouTube for 2 weeks! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R2uTwCiNv4 The 2014 Cross Examination Debate Association's na...

www.youtube.com