What do you think of debates on contemporary issues, whether on society, economics, politics...etc, which involve a clear editorial line and carefully chosen individuals/intellectuals. What does that do to the essence and freedom of debating?
Structured debate can handle “meta-debate” nature, especially where and when the replies are usually delivered quite dispassionately.
Source - Tim Sonnreich, 2012, Guide to Debating Tips, Tactics and First Principles, Monash Association of Debaters
http://www.monashdebaters.com/downloads/Schools%20Training%20Guide.pdf
Dear Mohamed Benmerikhi,
Debate is a clearly structured and specially organized public exchange of thoughts between the two sides on topical issues. This kind of public discussion is aimed at ensuring that the participants in the debate persuade their third party, not each other, that they are right. Therefore, the verbal and non-verbal means, which are used by the participants in the debate, are aimed at forming an opinion among the audience on the problem posed.
Regards, Shafagat
A debate is a discussion or structured contest about an issue or a resolution. A formal debate involves two sides: one supporting a resolution and one opposing it. ... Debates, in one form or another, are commonly used in democratic societies to explore and resolve issues and problems.
https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/socstud/frame_found_sr2/tns/tn-13.pdf
issuepedia.org/Structured_debate
Dear Dr. Mohamed Benmerikhi,
Structured is a formal debate. This format usually involves three groups. The one supporting a resolution brought for discussion. This team is termed as affirmative team. The second group opposing the resolution brought for discussion and this team termed as opposing team, The third group consists of those who are judging the quality of the evidence and arguments and the performance in the debate.
Isn't the fact of imposing a structure to a debate and chosing people who more or less fit in the frame of such structure inhibit richness and intellectual freedom?
I would oppose to that fact. Occasionally, this internet page also has a structure and provides a selection of people. These things could also inhibit richness and intellectual freedom. So, why is there in fact a great opportunity within debates, that enables us to enrich our intellectual freedom? Because there is the great need of responsiveness and to be concise. You are supposed to react direct to your opponent, you only have a limited time to respond and you have within this 'game' an order to win the debate. In my opinion, these factors make us very clear, brilliant and more open.
Dear Simon, Thank you for enriching the dabate on this controversial question. I believe intellectual debates on issues that concern society at large do not require from anyone to win or loose a debate. The most important issue is to advance current thought and broaden our minds to encompass more views. Nevertheless, you make an interesting point that must be taken into account. However, the fact that people from all over the world express their opinions and views freely on this issue, and the fact that researchgate as a platform for discussion enable the convergence of such ideas is a great oportunity for us to learn about each other.
Thank you Simon.
Yes, you are right Dear.
one that involves in a clear editorial line and carefully chosen individuals/intellectuals.
even that makes people sense on what, how and why is that significant ?
Hello,
A debate is a mode of argument involving opposing parties defending or criticizing a given claim. There are different types of debates one of which has been labelled as structured debate. As you have rightly observed, In this type of debate since the parties are carefully chosen and briefed on the targeted issues, the essence of the argumentation and the freedom dominating it are greatly impaired. It is true that in certain circumstances the application of structured interview can boost creativity resulting in a unified agreement; however, the real essence of the debate is based on natural and unspecified selection of parties by which both positive and negative sides of the argument can be broached up.
Best regards,
R. Biria
Enter your answer
I agree with the above and would add: all debate like all thinking has to be 'structured' but in the sense that it is grounded in a structure of thought, logic and beliefs and without which meaningful debate would not be possible. However, you seem to be talking of an 'illicit' kind of structuring which impedes freedom of thought in the sense that the parameters of debate are ideologically constrained. I think there is much of this that goes on unfortunately and it is ultimately destructive of the first kind of 'dialogue' which perhaps is found in Plato's dialogues and in forms of reasoning based on the Platonic tradition.
Great input Whyeda. I very much appreciate your contribution to this question, especially your reminding us of Plato.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication