> "Personally, I regard debates as one of the most irrational institutions
> that humans have devised. In the sciences, for example, you don't have
> "debates": rather, discussions, in which people try to come to some
> common understanding. At least, that's the ideal, often approaches,
> whereas debates, in their very nature, demand irrationality (you're not
> allowed to say, "interesting point, maybe you're right, let's explore
> it"). And formats such as the one you saw are designed to undercut the
> possibility of reasoned discussion.
What remember of the whole "debate team" format was that you were supposed to take a position and defend it by whatever (verbal) means necessary, regardless of what you thought of its merits. Do I have this wrong? It seemed profoundly cynical.
-- Andy