After Donald Trump dominated the Iowa caucuses, Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley said Tuesday that she will debate only Trump or President Joe Biden.
Perhaps sway the audience, but I’ve never seen a debate where the participants ever changed their mind. Debates are about showcasing ideas and then seeing if those ideas stand up to the critiques of your opponent.
Honestly, if a participant ever changed their mind during a debate, I’d think they were a poor representative of that idea. By the time you’re on stage at a formal debate you should have already thoroughly considered your opinion from every angle.
They’re not, though. The opponents are scripted, using tested talking points, and are tightly rehearsed in what to say in response to which questions. If caught flat footed, they simply repeat an established talking point, and the time limits on the debate as well as the agreed upon format prevents any followup from the hosts.
Debates are purely about charisma. They’re about projecting an air of knowledge and authority, whether or not you actually possess such knowledge. That’s why Trump does well - he simply lies with great conviction and excessive language. People who actually try to argue with him intellectually will lose, because he’s not doing that. He imitates Dwight Schrute imitating Mussolini.
If you want to know where a candidate stands, read the policy papers they post. Watch the one on one interviews but keep in mind they’re not confrontational - they’re designed to be a forum for the candidate to state their position, not to get them to explain or justify them.
I was speaking about debates more broadly, not just political debates but also scholarly debates. I don’t think the participants changing their minds would be a virtue.
I’m arguing that the principal of debate requires that you have a mind that can be changed. I’m not actually suggesting that one does, necessarily, change their mind over the course of a debate. However, it can be incredibly convincing to show a shift in thinking (taking the audience with you) where you do cede some caveats, but use them to further your argument and make it more convincing.
I listen to intelligence squared, and I wish that debates were formally moderated and scored.
I’m arguing that the principal of debate requires that you have a mind that can be changed.
Having an open mind that can be changed if provided with sufficient evidence is fantastic, something we should all strive for.
That being said, I don’t think it is necessarily needed for a debate. If you’re in a formally structured debate I would hope that you have fully considered all aspects, the pros and the cons. During the debate they should be making their points and critiquing the opposing viewpoint. Changing their mind would, in my opinion, be a disservice to the audience.
Perhaps sway the audience, but I’ve never seen a debate where the participants ever changed their mind. Debates are about showcasing ideas and then seeing if those ideas stand up to the critiques of your opponent.
Honestly, if a participant ever changed their mind during a debate, I’d think they were a poor representative of that idea. By the time you’re on stage at a formal debate you should have already thoroughly considered your opinion from every angle.
They’re not, though. The opponents are scripted, using tested talking points, and are tightly rehearsed in what to say in response to which questions. If caught flat footed, they simply repeat an established talking point, and the time limits on the debate as well as the agreed upon format prevents any followup from the hosts.
Debates are purely about charisma. They’re about projecting an air of knowledge and authority, whether or not you actually possess such knowledge. That’s why Trump does well - he simply lies with great conviction and excessive language. People who actually try to argue with him intellectually will lose, because he’s not doing that. He imitates Dwight Schrute imitating Mussolini.
If you want to know where a candidate stands, read the policy papers they post. Watch the one on one interviews but keep in mind they’re not confrontational - they’re designed to be a forum for the candidate to state their position, not to get them to explain or justify them.
I was speaking about debates more broadly, not just political debates but also scholarly debates. I don’t think the participants changing their minds would be a virtue.
I’m arguing that the principal of debate requires that you have a mind that can be changed. I’m not actually suggesting that one does, necessarily, change their mind over the course of a debate. However, it can be incredibly convincing to show a shift in thinking (taking the audience with you) where you do cede some caveats, but use them to further your argument and make it more convincing.
I listen to intelligence squared, and I wish that debates were formally moderated and scored.
Having an open mind that can be changed if provided with sufficient evidence is fantastic, something we should all strive for.
That being said, I don’t think it is necessarily needed for a debate. If you’re in a formally structured debate I would hope that you have fully considered all aspects, the pros and the cons. During the debate they should be making their points and critiquing the opposing viewpoint. Changing their mind would, in my opinion, be a disservice to the audience.