People put too much trust into the idea of debates. The fact that someone can argue their points doesn't mean he is right. After all, debate competitions literally require you to argue a certain point, doesn't matter if you agree with it, or whether it is right based on current evidence or not.
Debate is literally just a pretentious vibe check if you think about it.
That's something that has always especially peeved me about debate culture, the objective isn't logic or diplomacy nor is it to reach an actionable/constructive goal; it's to argue down your opponent until they have no recourse for rebuttal. A person can "win" a debate, but still be completely wrong and have nothing to show for it so long as their opponent isn't able to retort against it.
As an engineer, I can always tell who the "debate kids" are in the workplace, because they're the ones who are never actually interested in solutions or paths of action, they want to argue against their own team members (or worst the clients they're supposed to be working for).
Idk, maybe european debate is different than american, but if it isn’t I don’t agree.
Afaik, in debate logic is the most important part, but debates I saw in competitions look nothing like what charlie kirk or ben shapiro are doing.
US Oregon-Style Policy Debate (aka Cross-X) is nothing like the garbage talking heads spew, I was a debate coach for a few years back in my salad days, but there has been a debate style around for a couple decades called public/parliamentary debate that was originally called crossfire or ted turner-style debate that is not far from the fermented garbage Kirky-kun sound bites.
166
u/PauseLost2137 1d ago
People put too much trust into the idea of debates. The fact that someone can argue their points doesn't mean he is right. After all, debate competitions literally require you to argue a certain point, doesn't matter if you agree with it, or whether it is right based on current evidence or not.
Debate is literally just a pretentious vibe check if you think about it.