home ~ projects ~ socials

Debating Better

Introduction

A professor friend of mine does a rhetoric, argumentation, and debate podcast. I love language, but I've never formally studied any of those things. That gave me the chance to ask some newbie questions when I joined them for an episode.

One thing we discussed is how the word "debate" can mean different things. They offered some formal criteria for a definition. Here's what I took away from the conversation.

  1. A debate has a specific topic that everyone agrees to before it starts (e.g. The United States should implement a Universal Basic Income program)
  2. Everyone agrees to the format of the debate before it starts (e.g. each speaker takes turns speaking for three minutes at a time)
  3. Part of the format is always that the speakers take turns
  4. The audience is not an opponent. Debates are done for their benefit
  5. Speakers aren't trying to change each other's minds. Their goal is to convince the audience that their side is right
  6. The speakers are not "seeking truth" and or open to having their minds changed through the course of the debate. They work from a viewpoint that their position is 100% right

A Question Of Time

Another criteria that came up is that debates are done on a limited time. I didn't include that above because it can be fuzzy. For example, instead of two speakers on a stage, a debate could be a series of alternating books between two authors. Each a response to the book that proceeded it.

In that case, the time limit for the debate could be "until one of us dies".

I'm Not A Debater

Under these formal criteria, I am not a debater. I find very few things in life absolutes. Taking a "this is 100% right" position just doesn't work with my brain or world view.

I'm more about figuring out how to do and make things. And, as I'm writing this, I'm realizing that's much more about art than absolutes. I want to learn techniques. There's no need to spend time debating if a technique for making a thing works or not. Trying it answers the question directly.

Debating which tools and techniques are "better" also uninteresting to me. That all comes down to defining what "better" means. If folks are coming into a conversation with an absolute position they're going to work to define "better" in whatever way makes their position right. Even if that's divorced from what I'm trying to do.

Define Better

I constantly see folks talking about how one programming language or framework or editor is better than another. But, they don't start by defining what "better" means. More importantly, they don't take me into account. When my goal is to make something, saying I should use a tool I don't know because it's somehow generically "better" is...

Well, let's just say it's unwise.

It's a suggestion I should ignore my expertise with something I know, go back to being a beginner at something I don't and then spend the time to build up enough expertise with the new thing to be able to at least match what I can already do because... why?

There can be valid answers to that question that convince me to switch. But, if you're going to try to convince me, that's the question you need to answer first. Otherwise, you're just waisting both of our time.

The Episode

The podcast is called In The Bin. It's on Spotify. The specific episode is: What exactly is a debate anyway?

-- end of line --

Endnotes

  • One of the terms that came up that I hadn't heard before was "mutualism". It's what was used to describe the agreements on the topic and format of the debate.

  • There are three related categories in the academic world: Debate, Argumentation, and Discussion/Dialog. I'm not sure what the difference is yet. Asking about those is on my TODO list for future episodes