----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin Long, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 10:28 AM Subject: Re: Debate requirements
> > Now, a good debater would know the counter arguments and the data that > > support them and be ready to discuss them in detail. But, I don't think > > most debaters bring up the minuses for their position. > > Don't these rules depend on whether the goal is to score points or whether > the goal is to use dialogue to increase everyone's understanding of the > truth (TM), whatever that is? > That's a good question. In this particular case, I think I was constrained to give the advocacy for the Palestinian position. Thus, it didn't seem fair for me to include lotsa stuff that supported the position of Israel. So, I put myself in competitive debate mode in order to ensure that I did as good a job as possible on the affirmative for the Palestinians. Apart from that, the answer is "it depends." I know that there have been many times when, in problem solving, different people took on the role of advocating different needs, different aspects. During the debate, each person takes on the role of the advocate for a particular position. During the process, ground is given up only grudgingly. Towards the end of the process, people accept the consensus viewpoint. Or, when it is a really hard problem, people switch roles on another day and argue once new information comes in. This is a technique that often allows for solutions that would not otherwise become apparent. It does this because it allows for more surprises, I think. Its like a chess game between two masters that is more beautiful than any game in which one master lines out a theoretical game all by himself. Obviously, this type of search for truth takes advocates of comparable ability. I would not use it in a discussion with, say, a grade school student. It also takes people who can argue a position tooth and nail quite amiably. It also takes people who can, reevaluate their position during or after that particular debate and modify their positions. In particular, people need to realize that changing one's opinion is not an acceptance of failure or a mark of shame. An example of where I think it works is in my on and off list disagreements with Gautam. We have each changed our views on different matters after significant thought on the points raised by the other. That doesn't stop us from arguing tooth and nail the next time. However, I feel (and I'm sure Gautam does) respect for my worthy opponent, no matter how heavy the going gets. Dan M.
