[untitled]
7 comments
Not everyone is a good debater. You'll not be able to logically convince everyone, but it is possible that you'll be able to move a percentage toward your side of the argument.
At the minimum good debating requires taking perspectives, it isn't sufficient to shoot down or simply argue against the other side.
Therein lies the difficulty - to allow yourself to take perspective of the other side opens you up to the possibility of losing because you do not have the skills to navigate the complexity of debating.
People who can take perspectives and then still choose their side, are naturally much more rational and that is evidence to those who are watching.
At the minimum good debating requires taking perspectives, it isn't sufficient to shoot down or simply argue against the other side.
Therein lies the difficulty - to allow yourself to take perspective of the other side opens you up to the possibility of losing because you do not have the skills to navigate the complexity of debating.
People who can take perspectives and then still choose their side, are naturally much more rational and that is evidence to those who are watching.
It'll be a whole lot better to debate than not, but have accepted rules of the debate - e.g. that it'll be evidence based.
It truly is a spectacle, this nervous media-driven deflection. There's an anxious energy about it. It's tone deaf. It's not a good look, even if the evidence is in your favor. I know debates aren't always the best approach, but I think that we're safe here with Kennedy. Refusal will only increase the suspicion of a public that already distrusts an establishment that has a habit of, shall we say, twisting the truth for political purposes.