There is, I should say, a general and persistent problem with debate.
Somewhere in Murder Must Advertise Dorothy Sayers [who practised in the field] has a character point out that the copywriters who actually believe in their product turn out the least convincing material. This is confirmed not only by examining the output of professional debaters and trial lazwyers, but also by our ongoing character studies. where we see that the most convincing promoters are those who absolutely believe what they are saying only so long as they are actually saying it.
It has been pointed out by ruveyn and by me [with slightly different emphasesin different contexts, and I here intend no slight to others who have said much the same] that debate in the PPR context is severely handicapped - the half-empties will say pointless - just so long as there is a disconnect or disparity among the several sides in prime postulates and espoused methodology. I said that in a peer-reviewed Linguistic article once.
And yet we keep it up: You are a Swadeshite, you are a fool and damned. ... YOU are a follower of Radke, you are a damned idiot ... Your fadder's moustache ... Yo mama.
Now I have said [and so far as in me lies try to model] that it is possible to have serrious discussion to the degree that we explore one another's assumptions and methods, spotting whence the different stances really arise. I tend to engage those who present data and describe protocols, and drop away from those whose uniform is more important than truth.
But of course, then there is the other layer, the Thou must versus the This is why I of the method, my Bigendian order of presentation versus ruveyn's littleendianism. But even there is is possible to avoid debate and discuss.
-----------
If I were still at the U and this an exam I would here insert the directive:
Discuss, providing examples from your own experience.
05 May 2011, 8:58 am
