Ajit Pai: portrait of a Vichy nerd who transformed from debating-society darling to thin-skinned, brooding manbaby

[Wanderfound]

@anon50609448

We tell ourselves that debate is practice for reasoning, but it isn’t, it’s perversion of reasoning.

Yup.

Continuing the discussion from The Corrosion of High School Debate—And How It Mirrors American Politics:

@Wanderfound

Debate has always been a horrible means of discovering truth, though.

Debate is, fundamentally, a contest of rhetoric. Having logic and the facts on your side provides, at best, a tactical advantage.

There’s nothing innately wrong with rhetoric, but it isn’t a truth-seeking skill. It’s a tool of persuasion and influence.

Science is not based on debate; it’s based upon evidence, experimentation and consensus. We don’t resolve disputes by putting the two top scientists on stage to argue for an hour [1].

Not everything is science, obviously. But debate does not become a more effective truth-seeking tool just because the focus is a non-scientific topic.

[1] We do that for education and entertainment, but not for discovery or proof.