"The fallacy of objective debate"

[OmegaGuy]

I was talking to this guy on another board, and he used this term, claiming something like "any attempt to have an objective debate based on logic, evidence, and reason will never draw an objective conclusion, because the outcome of the debate is predicated far more on the skills of the debators involved than the actual validity of the points they are arguing for".

He used the example of a skilled Creationist debator being more likely to win a debate against an evolutionist debator who was not very skilled or experienced at debating, even though the evolutionist was more knowledgeable and had the facts on his/her side.

Basically his point is that the person who wins a debate will always be the more skilled debator, and not necessarily the one who was correct.

What are your thoughts on this?

[glass]

I think you can draw a distinction between who actually wins a debate and who the gullible public thinks won a debate.

For instance, your Creationsist cannot win the debate because they are wrong. The best they can hope for, against and unskilled debater is a draw. However, they can play to the crowd in the hope of appearing to win.

That's my $0.02.


glass.

[mr friendly guy]

What are your thoughts on this?

Short answer - the guy on another board is a retard.

Longer answer - the other guy is confusing the purpose of a debate and hence the criteria for "winning". A debate primary purpose is to help draw a conclusion, ie we recognise whether one or both positions are incorrect. Hence winning a debate goes to the person who have facts and logic on their side.

Retard guy seems to think the purpose of a debate is to convince people (regardless of intelligence to boot). Hence whoever convinces more people "wins". While this is used in politics, its a pathetic way of determining truth.

[Keevan_Colton]

There's a fallacy alright, it's just nothing to do with objective debate and everything to do with the good ol' appeal to popularity.

[PainRack]

Retard guy seems to think the purpose of a debate is to convince people (regardless of intelligence to boot). Hence whoever convinces more people "wins". While this is used in politics, its a pathetic way of determining truth.

Don't blame him though. This is how college debate teams work after all.

[PeZook]

Retard guy seems to think the purpose of a debate is to convince people (regardless of intelligence to boot). Hence whoever convinces more people "wins". While this is used in politics, its a pathetic way of determining truth.

Don't blame him though. This is how college debate teams work after all.

Oh, yeah. I'll second that.

I spent some time in a college debate club, and every time it seemed that all that counted was an ability to think up witty remarks and counters instead of doing ones research and preparing arguments beforehand.

It literally went "Ok, here's today's topic, you have 15 minutes to prepare, go!"

I'm sure the ability to present one's points publically is an important skill, but emphasizing "playing the audience" rather than preparing and using sound, factual arguments creates those gullible and stupid audiences in the first place.

[Keevan_Colton]

Amen to that. I could never be on a debate team for the simple reason I cant argue a position that does not fit the facts which is a big part of that bullshit...trying to convince an audience that you're right irrespective of the facts.

[Darth Wong]

This guy's argument presumes that the victor of a logical debate is he who can sway the most uneducated audience, which is in itself a fallacy. None of that shit flies in, say, a scientific dispute where the audience is other scientists. It only works when you have an audience of yokels who would otherwise be watching American Idol.

[sketerpot]

This guy's argument presumes that the victor of a logical debate is he who can sway the most uneducated audience, which is in itself a fallacy. None of that shit flies in, say, a scientific dispute where the audience is other scientists. It only works when you have an audience of yokels who would otherwise be watching American Idol.

Another key difference there is that in a scientific debate, if one person "loses" then they're still better off than when they started, because now there's one less thing that they're wrong about. In a typical style-over-substance appeal to the masses debate, convincing people is seen as vastly more important than being right.

[Darth Wong]

This guy's argument presumes that the victor of a logical debate is he who can sway the most uneducated audience, which is in itself a fallacy. None of that shit flies in, say, a scientific dispute where the audience is other scientists. It only works when you have an audience of yokels who would otherwise be watching American Idol.

Another key difference there is that in a scientific debate, if one person "loses" then they're still better off than when they started, because now there's one less thing that they're wrong about. In a typical style-over-substance appeal to the masses debate, convincing people is seen as vastly more important than being right.

Public debates are a circus act. Written debates are actually far superior on many levels, not least of which is the relative inability to use theatrics.

[OmegaGuy]

Yeah but the problem is that the people who have the most power (in the government and such) are more convinced by who can present their points better rather than who is actually right.

[Ghost Rider]

Yeah but the problem is that the people who have the most power (in the government and such) are more convinced by who can present their points better rather than who is actually right.

Lowest Common Denominator.

The point is that people in politics have always used what can stir up the people rather then whatever is logical.