Debates are fascinating human activities that are a mixture of logic, strategy, and show. Not everybody shares this fascination. The German author Emil Ludwig considered debates to be the death of conversation. Jonathan Swift regarded debates as the worst sort of conversation, and debates portrayed in books as the worst sort of reading. Public debates pose various interesting dilemmas. A debate between two positions gives an impression of symmetry, and engaging in a debate against an obscure or illegitimate position gives it some legitimacy and emphasis. On the other hand, ignoring obscure or illegitimate positions may also pave the way to getting them public legitimacy or to making them mainstream. A common form of debate is one in which an uninformed decisionmaker extracts information from two (or more) informed debaters who hold contradictory positions on a certain issue. Weblog debates are especially interesting, as they allow an unusual amount of interaction between the debaters and the uninformed audience. Common debate practices include ample repetitions, not giving up on seemingly small issues, never admitting a mistake, trying to undermine the professionalism and integrity of an opponent and not just his logic. We can ask ourselves if these debating practices are rational and optimal in terms of influencing the audience. They probably are.
Recent Comments

Recent Posts
 Duncan Dauvergne and Bálint Virág Settled the Random Sorting Networks Conjectures
 Zur Luria on the nQueens Problem
 Testing *My* Intuition (34): Tiling High Dimension with an Arbitrary LowDimensional Tile.
 My Copy of Branko Grünbaum’s Convex Polytopes
 Cohen, Haeupler, and Schulman: Explicit Binary TreeCodes & Cancellations
 Test Your Intuition (34): Tiling high dimensional spaces with twodimensional tiles.
 Coloring Problems for Arrangements of Circles (and Pseudocircles)
 Aubrey de Grey: The chromatic number of the plane is at least 5
 Conference on High Dimensional Combinatorics, April 2226 2018
Top Posts & Pages
 Duncan Dauvergne and Bálint Virág Settled the Random Sorting Networks Conjectures
 How the gConjecture Came About
 (Eran Nevo) The gConjecture I
 Eran Nevo: gconjecture part 4, Generalizations and Special Cases
 Believing that the Earth is Round When it Matters
 Aubrey de Grey: The chromatic number of the plane is at least 5
 Updates and plans III.
 Zur Luria on the nQueens Problem
 TYI 30: Expected number of Dice throws
RSS
Advertisements
I have to assume that I’m illegitimate, obscure,
being give some legitmacy here:
http://lucatrevisan.wordpress.com/2008/12/24/inducingpercussionsinallofmathematics/#comment1406
Even if people don’t say so, I have to select the path of selfpunishment.
Otherwise, both Aristotle & Plato would get angry at me.
If either of them, I might be safe. But never when both.
Selfpunishement:
2 decades+ of research: sole, orphan 1 paper.
DuboisPradeGodo academic empire wrote to me more than a decade ago:
“After all this MESS, soundness, completeness and fixpoint theory are a complete DARK question”,
After analyzing dozens of REJECTED papers, the result is that ALL is a MESS.
Total MESS.
ZFC is (irreparably) Inconsistent!
Ridiculous Career,
Publicationless author,
Rafee Kamouna.
Is it perhaps important to distinguish between two (or more?) alternative purposes of debate?
1. To persuade observers who are undecided on the question at issue.
2. To promote understanding of the question at issue.
(others?)
The methods appropriate for achieving one purpose are not necessarily appropriate for achieving the other(s?).
Peter Drucker, in _The Effective Executive_, argues that good decisions must begin with rational *disagreement*. If everyone agrees before the decision, it is a danger sign: it indicates that nobody really understands the issues.
For purpose 2, I find Herman Kahn’s concept of “higher order agreement” to be very helpful:
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/2008/Q2/mail520.html#Kahn
Pingback: A Discussion and a Debate  Combinatorics and more