Debating is a very Anglo-Saxon thing: everything seems subject to debating, schools and universities even have debate clubs.
Being able to present your argument and win your case over your opponent is certainly an admirable skill that anyone should be encouraged to hone.
It’s the foundation of persuasion, of being able to rally people to your cause.
Debating is also at the very core of the justice system, with each side arguing passionately -and equally- about its case.
The drawback to the debate culture is that opposing arguments are presented as being of equal strength: they are supposed to be two faces of the same coin.
That way of thinking has clouded the public’s ability to make judgement based on the intrinsic value of what is represented to them. Instead, they will instinctively assume that, for each argument, there is an equally valid counter-argument that needs to be heard.
The debate culture is so pervasive that even scientific arguments are subject to debate.
Creationist, and their pet theory, Intelligent Design (ID), argue that they have just another counter-argument to Darwin’s theory of Evolution and they want equal time defending it in the classroom.
Because of the debate culture, most people see opposition as being fair game when it really doesn’t even come close: Evolution as overwhelming amounts of observations, experiments, facts and scientific research behind it whereas ID has nothing but a thinly veiled religious objection based on a childlike view of the world (more on that in another post).
Things are not always equal, and for every argument, there isn’t always an equally valid counterargument.
Expecting debates to be an expression of fairness is terribly wrong.
Debate are useful in the political sphere and in philosophy where eloquence and the clarity of your ideas are the necessary means to win argument.
Where science is concerned the public’s belief in debate as a way to differentiate fundamental ideas is misplaced: scientific theories are not settled by debates, democratic votes or political decisions.
While they can serve a limited purpose to present new ideas, public scientific debates are of limited value. At the end of the day, it’s how much factual evidence supports your theory that counts, not how great protagonists are defending them in the public arena.
—
An interesting article on the subject:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/dont_debate_creationists.php
