On Monday, I happened upon Rob Burgess' column, calling for Ball State to sponsor a student debate between any interested political groups. He proposes a single debate, ostensibly between the College Republicans and the University Democrats.
In principle, debates are always a good idea. Truth emerges through debates; they hone research and critical thinking skills, and, if you're the competitive type, they are tons of fun, especially when you win.
So, it's generally a good idea to support open debate and discussion - and the more the better. Political groups on campus should certainly look into asking the university to sponsor not just one debate, but a series of debates.
Even if the university refuses to sponsor debates or even to rent out rooms, spring is coming; why not hold informal debates outside? An argument beneath the Bell Tower or in the Atrium or between Bracken Library and the Arts and Communication Building would be fun. And, of course, the more arguments, the better; they will spur discussion and get people thinking.
But should we limit ourselves to only rhetorical contests? The answer seems obviously negative: There's no reason to do so.
In fact, in arguing, we should focus primarily on textual arguments for the very simple reason that in text, one need not pander to the average short attention span and desire for simplicity.
Rhetorical debate lends itself naturally to rhetorical flourishes and oversimplification. As an example, consider creationism.
Evolution is a very complex subject, and hence excellently unsuited to verbal debate, while creationists have made an industry out of training smooth, polished debaters who deal in caricatures and soundbites.
Thus, even though creationism has not been scientifically taken seriously since the 1880s, almost every time a creationist formally debates an evolutionist, the creationist wins the debate despite using arguments that have been discredited for a century.
Creationist arguments are inherently easier to package than evolutionary arguments, which take time and effort to understand.
In a text debate, this general problem of oversimplification is easier to avoid, because written English is more suited to dealing with complex issues (almost all scientific debate is conducted by text). Text is permanent, so the reader can always refer back to previous parts of the essay instead of trying to recall words back out of short-term memory.
This permanence of the written word is also important in ensuring honesty. In a verbal debate, because memory is imperfect, it is easy to build straw men or to use bait-and-switch topics or to even blatantly contradict yourself.
In a written debate, however, anybody can skim back through previous iterations and see what was written. It is a matter of public record.
These proposed debates, then, should not just be verbal; they should be written, as well.
In fact, they should be waged through every medium which is conducive to the clear exchange of ideas: through videos, face-to-face rhetoric, speeches, e-mails, forums, letters and others which doubtlessly exist but I've forgotten. Debate is the glorious search for truth, and nobody should shy from it.
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
