I remember a debate held at Swarthmore about the proposed Iraq War just post-2001 between Leon Wieseltier and Mark Danner. Wieseltier absolutely crushed Danner with a range of incorrect facts, misleading hypotheticals, fast-talking cherry-picking of Danner's arguments, etc.; Danner's need to stay a respectable part of the public sphere that respected Wieseltier had him tied up in knots, conceding far too much to Wieseltier's manipulative assertions, apologizing for his own analysis, etc.
And yet by any standard imaginable, in retrospect, Danner was the absolute winner; everything he said was completely on-target and everything Wieseltier was not only incorrect but in many cases maliciously so.
"Debate" in this formal sense rarely does anybody credit. It's only interesting as a form of entertainment akin to wrestling. I'd like to think that nobody imagines Triple-H really beat Steve Austin through greater skill that was spontaneously exhibited in an open-ended match, and it's the same with 'debates'--it's all about the showmanship.
TBH, that's one of the reason I like Sam Harris (or Richard Dawkins) without even needing to be as anti-clerical as they are. I may not agree with all of their positions or all of their framing but they never went cuckoo.
I like watching debates. They help me compare and contrast candidates for office and sides of issues. I also do read fact checks.
Some people are more skilled then others, yes, but I still find debates valuable, and maybe public spokespeople should be good at defending their beliefs to the masses?
I also feel like right now, when everyone is in their own bubbles, we need debates. We need 1-2 hours when, at the very least, everyone is hearing the same questions, even if they then hear two competing answers.
Recommend in a debate with RFKjr: When he talks anti vax you talk wifi radiation. Talk about chem trails. Don't even note his anti vax. Talks his crazy. Talk about how children die of Whooping Cough. Just because his opponent is a virus expert, doesn't mean he can't go off on the reservation and talk about what the crazies talk about.
I remember a debate held at Swarthmore about the proposed Iraq War just post-2001 between Leon Wieseltier and Mark Danner. Wieseltier absolutely crushed Danner with a range of incorrect facts, misleading hypotheticals, fast-talking cherry-picking of Danner's arguments, etc.; Danner's need to stay a respectable part of the public sphere that respected Wieseltier had him tied up in knots, conceding far too much to Wieseltier's manipulative assertions, apologizing for his own analysis, etc.
And yet by any standard imaginable, in retrospect, Danner was the absolute winner; everything he said was completely on-target and everything Wieseltier was not only incorrect but in many cases maliciously so.
"Debate" in this formal sense rarely does anybody credit. It's only interesting as a form of entertainment akin to wrestling. I'd like to think that nobody imagines Triple-H really beat Steve Austin through greater skill that was spontaneously exhibited in an open-ended match, and it's the same with 'debates'--it's all about the showmanship.
TBH, that's one of the reason I like Sam Harris (or Richard Dawkins) without even needing to be as anti-clerical as they are. I may not agree with all of their positions or all of their framing but they never went cuckoo.
I like watching debates. They help me compare and contrast candidates for office and sides of issues. I also do read fact checks.
Some people are more skilled then others, yes, but I still find debates valuable, and maybe public spokespeople should be good at defending their beliefs to the masses?
I also feel like right now, when everyone is in their own bubbles, we need debates. We need 1-2 hours when, at the very least, everyone is hearing the same questions, even if they then hear two competing answers.
Recommend in a debate with RFKjr: When he talks anti vax you talk wifi radiation. Talk about chem trails. Don't even note his anti vax. Talks his crazy. Talk about how children die of Whooping Cough. Just because his opponent is a virus expert, doesn't mean he can't go off on the reservation and talk about what the crazies talk about.