The reason why I don't watch U.S. presidential debates is because logic, reason and sound arguments have zero impact on who's considered the "winner" of the debate.
Debates are won with zingers, one-liners and who was more of a presence; not with the actual substance of a debate. Trump proved debates can be "won" in the public eye without mentioning facts or policies of any kind.
Consider this debate between Phyllis Schlafly and Betty Freidan:
Schlafly is an influential anti-feminist conservative woman who, among other acts, is known for being instrumental in stopping the Equal Rights Act for women. Friedan is on the opposite end of the spectrum, a feminist known for authoring "The Feminine Mystique".
What's notable about this debate is that even though Schlafly's argument would be considered abhorrent today, especially if said by a man, she's so much more poised and eloquent with her argument. She comes across as much more polished and confident, while Friedman often stutters and lacks clarity in what she's trying to say. Again: keep in mind that Friedman is the author of a famous and well-received book; organizing thoughts and mastery of words is something she clearly has command of. But in this debate, perhaps due to nervousness at being televised, she's nowhere near as effective a speaker as Schlafly.
It can definitely be argued that Schlafly won this debate, despite Friedman making more valid points.
College debate teams emphasize confidence and stage presence over the actual content of the debate. It's not secret that debates are won by who entertains the audience more.
Does this mean, then, that arguing on a debate forum has no meaning? Or that debates of any kind are have no real value?
There's also the flip side of that argument: that debates can be won a more intelligent person, even if that person's ideas are flawed. A well-educated person with flawed beliefs can out-debate an uneducated man who's logic is more sound.
If such is the case, debates may be a complete waste of time.
Debates are worthless for those who actually have a reason to believe what they believe. Only people who have no clue what they believe in will be swayed by a debate, unless something disturbing gets revealed.
A perfect exampe was Ford's statement that there were no Russians in Hungary.
@vivify saidDepends on the venue I suppose. Debates here are just a shouting match, the sole purpose of which is to have a pop at characters you disagree with on substantive issues.
The reason why I don't watch U.S. presidential debates is because logic, reason and sound arguments have zero impact on who's considered the "winner" of the debate.
Debates are won with zingers, one-liners and who was more of a presence; not with the actual substance of a debate. Trump proved debates can be "won" in the public eye without mentioning facts or policies of ...[text shortened]... that arguing on a debate forum has no meaning? Or that debates of any kind are have no real value?
But public debates in the real world can be useful for informing a wider audience of certain viewpoints in the hope of persuading the uncommitted to your side.
The example of the presidential debates is almost totally aimed at the floating voter and is much more about the performance of debaters than the substance of the debate.
I wouldn’t say they are worthless unless you felt that their sole purpose was to reveal the objective truth about any given topic, they are certainly worthless from that perspective.
@kevcvs57 saidWas there a time when your opinion on an issue was changed by engaging in or listening to a debate?
Depends on the venue I suppose. Debates here are just a shouting match, the sole purpose of which is to have a pop at characters you disagree with on substantive issues.
But public debates in the real world can be useful for informing a wider audience of certain viewpoints in the hope of persuading the uncommitted to your side.
The example of the presidential debates is al ...[text shortened]... eveal the objective truth about any given topic, they are certainly worthless from that perspective.
Personally, engaging in debates exposes me to other points of view that wouldn't have thought of if not for being in that debate. That's because I never enter debates with the goal of "winning". I'm always open to being wrong, and to learning new facts and ideas.
For me, debates have had value. But I'm just one person. I wonder if the vast majority of debates in the world amount to anything.
@vivify saidI always felt the problem was the coverage of the debate more than the debate itself. But perhaps, as you suggest, many people are more interested in one liners and zingers than discussion of policy.
The reason why I don't watch U.S. presidential debates is because logic, reason and sound arguments have zero impact on who's considered the "winner" of the debate.
Debates are won with zingers, one-liners and who was more of a presence; not with the actual substance of a debate. Trump proved debates can be "won" in the public eye without mentioning facts or policies of ...[text shortened]... that arguing on a debate forum has no meaning? Or that debates of any kind are have no real value?
@vivify saidAll debates are seemingly worthless.
The reason why I don't watch U.S. presidential debates is because logic, reason and sound arguments have zero impact on who's considered the "winner" of the debate.
Debates are won with zingers, one-liners and who was more of a presence; not with the actual substance of a debate. Trump proved debates can be "won" in the public eye without mentioning facts or policies of ...[text shortened]... that arguing on a debate forum has no meaning? Or that debates of any kind are have no real value?
@vivify saidNo but I’ve had opinions formed on something by listening to debates between two opposing sides.
Was there a time when your opinion on an issue was changed by engaging in or listening to a debate?
But I’ve never had a strongly held opinion changed by debate or any other means. They can be useful for forming opinions in others but not changing them.