Skip to main content

The problems with public debate

Bust of Plato
Eloquence is generally a good quality of good public speaking.  However, it can occasionally serve to confuse issues and mislead people who confuse ‘winning’ a public debate with being factually correct.  This is a particular problem associated with demagogues. 
In the United States, presidential candidates are often those with legal experience and can hold their own against another speaker with less education in rhetoric. 
An experienced debater who is obsessed with winning will resort to less intellectually honest methods to win over a crowd, including saying things which are outright false in order to render his opponent speechless.
A less eloquent, but more knowledgeable opponent might make better use of internet dialogue to make their points if they are unused to the nuances of public debate.  This can include those who know they have the information to counter a point but do not have it on the tip of their tongue.  Theirs is often the domain of well-referenced replies when they have the time and resources to collate responses. 
People also confuse the gravitas of a speaker with intellectual content.  An older speaker with a deep booming voice may win the crowd over a younger, more effeminate character, no matter the content of their arguments.  Body language can play a key role in determining the audience’s perception of the debate. 
Kennedy vs Nixon debate
In the presidential debate between Nixon and Kennedy, there was a difference in opinion between radio listeners and television watchers as to who won the debate.  The vast proportion of the radio listeners thought that Nixon had dominated the debate, while those who viewed it onscreen thought otherwise.  Nixon did not look relaxed or confident compared to Kennedy.  He had a five o’clock shadow and looked sweaty and nervous.  The difference in confidence can be highly misleading in that the inherent logic in the statements will be ignored in favour of more emotive cues.
Another problem with public debates, as opposed to private discussion, is the sheer number of dishonest debating tactics which are employed to win the audience over to their position.
According to Harvard MBA author John T Reed, the only two honest debating tactics are as follows:
Pointing out errors and omissions in the opponent’s facts or doing likewise for his logic.
All the rest are dishonest.  The multitude of dishonest tactics can range from ad hominem attacks to pointless appeals to authority.  Fallacies are easily exposed by commentators in online debate, but it often gets overlooked in tit-for-tat exchanges in public debate.
However, it is only fair to acknowledge the limitations of online discussion.  One who puts forth an unpopular opinion on the internet can be subject to all forms of cowardly attacks, from simple trolling to illegal attacks such as doxing or doc dropping (where private details of an individual are exposed online for further attack and harassment. 
Trolling can make things difficult in that it can be difficult to tell the difference between a genuine controversial thought and parodying such thought for amusement.  This phenomenon was humorously christened ‘Poe’s law’.   There is an aspect of the internet discussion that will always be problematic.  The issue of actual diversity of opinion in politics is hard to determine in online polls and activity.
Every major nation uses the internet for propaganda by spreading favourable information for their country and disparaging information about their opponents.  Russia’s government trolling networks are but one example of this.  America’s Operation Earnest voice is another example of internet sock puppetry.
Public debates have their problems, but for the reasons stated above, they will always be an invaluable tool in democratic society.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Whatever happened to slingers?

Andean sling - Img source Wikimedia commons This is a question that crops up in forums and discussions about ancient combat.  Slingers were described by the ancients in very positive terms.  Suddenly they were no longer present.  There are scanty records of sling combat post-antiquity and many explanations have been postulated for their demise. The first is that slings were replaced by bows.   Bows became predominant simply because they were better, more precise, farther reaching etc. The problem with this theory is that while both slings and bows are biodegradable, the oldest discovered bows (Holmegaarde, 6000 BC) predate the oldest sling discovered (2500 BC, Lovelock cave) by thousands of years.   The theory also discounts all written evidence concerning the sling.   Slings were crude but powerful weapons which could project missiles much further than an archer could shoot an arrow.   Long range throwing also depended on the type of ammun...
Post a Comment
Read more

Vikings vs Romans: A hypothetical battle

Roman army vs the Vikings If one were to take the Roman army at its height, it would decimate any early medieval army that would cross its path, according to a claim by Dan Carlin. To test his theory, let’s take a look at a hypothetical battle fought between the Vikings and the Romans.   It is easy to see how Carlin would come to such a conclusion.  At the height of the Roman empire in 117 AD, the army boasted hundreds of thousands of soldiers, all professional, all equipped and supplied well at the expense of the state. No such force existed in western European countries in the Viking age.  Armies were mostly levies with core body of professionals such as the Germanic huskarls or household guard. One could argue that this lack of professionalism was mitigated by a warrior culture.  This is erroneous, however.  Classical Greek and early Roman societies had a warrior culture that prized courage in battle.  Every citizen was also considered a so...
Post a Comment
Read more

Does Gandhi's civil resistance always work?

Gandhi's salt march Non-violent civil resistance is a wonderful idea whose utility cannot be underestimated.  In theory and practice, the authority which does not lead by consent will naturally lose its foundation.  If the non-violent civil resisters are brutalised , then the authority loses all vestiges of legitimacy since legitimacy stems from honorable action and popular consent. However, it is not a principle that can work universally.  Non-violent civil resistance worked well in India for a number of reasons. The first is the population in India outnumbered the British expatriate class and administration by over a thousand to one.  Secondly, the vast geographical expanse between India and England was a further deterrent to keeping India.  Keeping India could only be justified (from an economic perspective) if the risks and losses from such a distance could be mitigated or exceeded by the resources gained from ruling.  Furthermore, the adminis...
Post a Comment
Read more