If you had a coworker who got a new dog. They were excited and told everyone in the office about him.
Couple months later this coworker throws a party. When you get to their house, they excitedly show you the new dog, but when what you see is clearly a cat.
Which are you more likely to think? “What an interesting looking dog.” or “Sir, that is a cat.”
He said it was a dog, and everyone attending was expecting to see a dog. It wasn’t a dog.
How about this scenario:
You have a disagreement with your neighbor about the property line. You mutually agree to settle it with a debate.
Your neighbor spends the entire time talking over you, sidestepping virtually every point you make, blatantly lying, personally insulting you and airing grievances.
You participate in good faith and the moderator decides that the property line should follow your plans.
Did you and your neighbor engage in a debate?
Here is an opinion: Donald Trump is neither classically or emotionally intelligent enough to engage in an actual, by definition, debate.
Your first analogy is flawed. If we compare it to the boxing example, it’s as if the two contenders played poker in the middle of the ring. Then the audience would be like “sir, this is a poker tournament.” So, no. Not the same.
The second one is still a debate. The neighbor is deranged, but there is a procedure, the neighbor didn’t follow the usual rules, and it didn’t help him at all.
Let me try it this way…
If you had a coworker who got a new dog. They were excited and told everyone in the office about him.
Couple months later this coworker throws a party. When you get to their house, they excitedly show you the new dog, but when what you see is clearly a cat.
Which are you more likely to think? “What an interesting looking dog.” or “Sir, that is a cat.”
He said it was a dog, and everyone attending was expecting to see a dog. It wasn’t a dog.
How about this scenario:
You have a disagreement with your neighbor about the property line. You mutually agree to settle it with a debate.
Your neighbor spends the entire time talking over you, sidestepping virtually every point you make, blatantly lying, personally insulting you and airing grievances.
You participate in good faith and the moderator decides that the property line should follow your plans.
Did you and your neighbor engage in a debate?
Here is an opinion: Donald Trump is neither classically or emotionally intelligent enough to engage in an actual, by definition, debate.
Your first analogy is flawed. If we compare it to the boxing example, it’s as if the two contenders played poker in the middle of the ring. Then the audience would be like “sir, this is a poker tournament.” So, no. Not the same.
The second one is still a debate. The neighbor is deranged, but there is a procedure, the neighbor didn’t follow the usual rules, and it didn’t help him at all.