Debate: Barbara Shepherd and Dave Shepherd argue back and forth and try to come to agreement about the meaning of debate.
Thanks to Alex Enkerli for an audio comment on MyChingo. (2:03)
This edition was inspired by an email from Paul Lawler (3:45)
Definitions of debate; what exactly constitutes a debate? (5:26)
Music bumper from “Arabesque” by Mauricio Cuburu (11:21)
Different types of debates for different purposes and in different forums; check out the Copley Debates website, as well as Trivium Pursuit and the Aberdeen Central High School site. We also discuss Robert’s Rules of Order.(13:26)
Song: “Support for My Argument” by Emma Wallace (25:11)
Rude Word of the Week: “filibuster” (28:55)
Music bumper from “Rebuttal” by The Working Title. (32:44)
When does an argument become a debate? A brief homage to Monty Python’s classic “Argument” sketch: “Just saying no isn’t an argument!” “Yes it is.” “No it isn’t!” (33:24)
Music courtesy of The Podsafe Music Network.
Theme music by Kick the Cat
Closing theme from “Grapes” by Evan Stone
time: 39:44
size: 36.4 Mb
rating: G (This entire discussion of debate is conducted in a civil and respectful manner.)
Still listening to the show but I got to think about the cultural basis of some debating habits. A debating “style” and a certain training in public debate which isn’t unique to a given cultural context but which sounds much more prominent in some parts of the world (and some languages). Dave’s comments about Robert’s “rules of order” didn’t really get me thinking about this but did channel some of my thoughts. Especially the point about not having a bishop, which can be associated with a certain legal system, and the idea that some texts are used as guidelines for debates in certain language communities.
Basically, I’m extrapolating on a long strand which goes from Ancient Greece to the United States through Germany and England. It’s a bit hard to verbalize but I do have a fairly clear model in my mind which I associate with contemporary societies referring to Anglo-Saxon and Germanic traditions which, in their turn, refer back to one strand of Ancient Greek practise. (There’s a “folk philology” or language ideology among some German-speakers link Germanic language and thought to Greece. Not sure how prominent it is today but Romantic Nationalism after Herder seemed full of it.)
The easiest contrast is with “Latin” societies. We, speakers of Romance languages, obviously have debating strategies. But it seems to me that our debating styles are quite different from the ones which we associate with Greek, Germanic, and Anglo-Saxon traditions. My personal experience seems to indicate that debates among French-speakers, for instance, tend to be less personalized (with fewer ad hominem attacks but also with a less prominent use of what Jakobson called the “conative” function). I Am Not A Lawyer (and law in Quebec is quite different from law in either French- or English-speaking contexts) but my hunch is that the attacks on character which seem prominent in U.S. courts are rare among French-speakers.
I guess I’m already rambling. Will have to think more about this. Of course, I may be way off (and other commentators will surely tell me so). But I’m not ready to debate these points. I’m just thinking out loud.
As always, thanks for the thought nourishment.