I find debate barbaric. Its goal is to convince as many people as possible to believe some proposition. This isn't bad in itself. Rather, it's the format of the debate that I dislike. Humans, the imperfect beings that we are, respond better to good rhetoric and presentation than substantive argument. Debate substitutes persuasion for accuracy and thoroughness. I can't think of a more fitting word than barbaric to describe such disregard for the truth and rigor.
However, just because something is barbaric, doesn't mean it can't be entertaining to watch. Debate, in my opinion, is best looked at like the Roman games. Yes, killing dozens of people in a day for sport is barbaric, but the Romans found it very entertaining. This debate should be thought of along the same lines.
The motion is that the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world. Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdencombe speak for the motion while Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens speak against it. This debate doesn't really resemble a gladiatorial battle so much as the mid-day events where criminals (e.g., Christians) were executed by being fed to wild animals (e.g., lions).
I've been waiting for this, so good.
ReplyDelete