No Debate

This article, by law professor Jacob Schriner-Briggs, focuses primarily on why “debate” (as modeled by high-school debate societies) is a harmful and destructive practice. The main reason is that debate instrumentalizes reason in pursuit not of truth, or improving people’s lives, or justice, or any other positive externality, but instead solely on a specious demonstration of “skill” in which rhetorical tools and the ability to access (but not necessarily to understand) information is given preference over (again) actually understanding the issue at hand.

Speaking of “at hand,” my tone so far has been rather formal…but the fact is, “master debater” is an apt pun, in that debaters do make use of techniques that resemble productive argument or discussion but instead lead only (if successful) to their own pleasure. And, worse yet, to the defeat and humiliation (rather than, say, the mutual benefit) of the other debater.

The fact that debaters are valued for their ability to argue any side of an argument, actual plausibility or truth be damned, is another symptom of this issue. As are more recent debating techniques like the “Gish Gallop,” which basically consists of the debater overwhelming their opponent with a flood of raw information, never mind whether it’s relevant or true, because leaving claims unrefuted is a no-no in debate competitions. And of course, given that debate occurs within particular time constraints (because, as we all know, arguments that pertain to reality always can be addressed within a few minutes—there’s no such thing as a “complex, nuanced argument”…), it’s impossible to refute all such points, even if they’re 99% bullshit.

And this is discipline which (as Schriner-Briggs notes) has perhaps the strongest correlation to careers in law, politics, and other fields that have powerful influence on the direction of our world.