We don't text debate keyboard warriors. Here's the reason why:mattp wrote:I'm up for a debate, though I have no mic or camera so it's gonna have to be text format...
Here's an example of why keyboard warrior debates are useless:
Here's a close-up view
There's a definite reason why people avoid live debates. Critics of live debates love to claim that text debates are superior because nothing can be altered and the words are right there for everyone to see if someone holds a bad position.
BUT they fail to point out that you can't hold someone ACCOUNTABLE during a text debate. It's very easy to ignore or dismiss a challenge in a text debate. This is the very reason people prefer text debates over live debates.
Also in a text debate, words have no demand and can therefore be explained away or minimized safely after the debate. "I didn't mean it that way" .... or "you're taking what I said out of context, I meant this"...or "you missed the entire tone, I was being sarcastic!" It's too easy to remove accountability from yourself during a text debate.
Not to mention the fact that people have the ability to censor and alter text. We know this because many have done so against us during text debates.
In a LIVE debate, bullshit can IMMEDIATELY be called out. People can be cornered in their lies and delusional thinking. The audience can judge tone and meaning more effectively when people are asked to immediately justify their positions. Inconsistencies can be immediately clarified; LIVE debates are much more effective at getting to the truth because live action allows debates to immediately hone in on the real contentions and trim the unnecessary fat and distractions from their arguments.
The problem is that today's model of a live debate is a fallacy. It's a con. It's nothing more than a "live" version of a text debate because both sides are merely allowed to give speeches to one another without any real interaction. There's barely any point to having the 2 debaters in the same room. They might as well just mail each other their individual monologues. The ability to challenge claims on the spot is severely limited. And the pedantic obsession with turn-based speaking and time limits only exposes the intellectual cowardice and dishonesty infecting this medium. These timid assholes are essentially trying to euphemize the most meaningful life-altering contentions into a mere handshaking intellectual whimper. They are trying to save face and protect their self-esteem at the cost of telling the truth. Ken Ham & Bill Nye's debate is a perfect example of this type of bullshit:
Today's "live" version of debates are ruled by cowards who simply wish to invoke their desire to run from accountability under the pretense of formalized, legalistic intellectualism. They do not represent the spirit of rational and open debate. Such intellectual mockeries violate the entire point of public scrutiny by trying to micromanage every aspect of the argument beforehand so nothing goes off script and nobody feels stupid. The preservation of one's feelings becomes the top priority. The fact that most of our cowardly opponents complain about us not sticking to a formal debate model which allows them to give turn-based, uninterrupted, long-winded speeches only exposes their real desire to escape accountability for their delusionally insulated views. They don't want to be questioned and judged. They just want to state their claims while avoiding any real examination. This defeats the entire purpose of a debate.
Even Russell Brand has a great take on this:
go save your lunch money for 2 weeks, and then you will have enough to buy a $10 webcam.