Welcome to Gaia! ::

Basically, this thought crossed my mind and I thought it was funny, sad and scary all at the same time, I'll elaborate.

I was watching a T.V program, it was a show totally founded on the art of Debating. The program would find a popular subject of debate at that time, find an equal amount of people to debate for each side, and let them do their thing on live television.

As I watched this program, the majority of the people 'debating' were just basically trying to outwit the opposition and make them look stupid. When one side produced a valid argument, the other would throw out some personal attack and vice versa.

I sat back watching it for half an hour, and just laughed at the entire situation. I decided, that the people in this 'debate' were basically trying to vent their anger in a humane way, opposed to broaden their horizons on a subject, be productive and invoke change.

The situation kind of threw me off a little, especially because majority rules. Is this how our world has came to be what it is? We throw away logic and take sides with whoever's witty and looks least stupid?

I think about it, and wonder to myself, is this all debating ever was? Have I been totally oblivious to how shallow it was up until this point? Please people, enlighten me with your opinions on the subject and lets just hope the majority of you aren't swayed as easily as I think.

Is Debating as shallow as I think it is? Discuss.

EDIT: Give me direct opinions, AND reasons why you've decided that it works for you if possible. If you're undecided, tell me that.

I don't believe ALL debating is shallow, just the majority. When I previously thought it was the other way around.

If I truly convince one of you what I believe, this thread, in my eyes, is successful (But I'll be content with just giving people another perspective on the subject). I wont try any cheap tricks, but simply tell you how it is.

I didn't come to the conclusion that debating is shallow judging by a single show, it just brought the idea to my attention.

I made this thread to raise awareness. Keep that point in mind.

Real debate is specifically concerned with NOT using logical fallacies such as Ad Hominem attacks. People off the street suck at debate. If you ever get the chance, check out a local university debating tournament - I think you'll be pleasently surprised by the interest and quality of actual debating.

The average person doesn't even know what logical fallicies are of the top of their head, it's no wonder these people didn't know how to avoid them.

(10 points if you can name the fallacy involved in my previous paragraph! lol)

The strength of debate comes fro mthe context of the debators.

As a previous poster said, watch a show for random pickings, the integrity of the debate is also random.

Find a structured, place of unity and the right atmosphere for debate, and attract interested peoples. The quality raises.

This assumes that you consider debate that stays on topic, and uses reasonable facts and logical deductions as opposed to being offtopic and unreasonable (out of context) facts and random logic as a standard for 'good debate'.

Arg. No. A logical fallacy is a hole in logic. Water is blue, water is wet, the sky is blue, therefore the sky is wet. That sort of thing.

My point is that what you saw was not debate. Debate is about avoiding personal attacks, holes in logic, and topic-changing in order to actually argue a point. Debate is about beign smarter and more interesting and more persuisive.

Judging debate by watching people off the street argue is not a fair trial.

Well... ideally, the point is to make the most solid argument, right? So you try to supoort your statements with verifiable evidence. The other strategy to having the most solid argument is to weaken the opposing argument. Granted, an air-tight case from you would work to that end, but what if he's got a surprise? You want to undermine his credibility from the get-go. The challenge is doing so effectively without seeming to -- otherwise it just turns into mud-slinging. Or a Jerry Springer episode. xd

The show I was watching, went right to the source, and got the people in question to appear on the show, and the people that headed the arguments against them and what they're doing. I don't think many people would watch it and acknowledge the fact that they're just making fun of each other in an intellectual way. You've basically confirmed my idea that it's just arguing with style in an indirect way.

Well ok. I apologise for avoiding giving an exact opinion.

In essence, i think that debate is not done popularly enough and widely enough for too many people to be any good at it, and thats why there is little debate of a 'quality' level. So i agree that debate is largely just arguement, but thats inevitable, and the people you find who will debate properly or rather, debate to your liking make it worth the lack of numbers anyway, methinks.

(Don't worry. Australia isn't all V.B and Rugby League. Although i admit partiality to Rugby League. hah.)