Some time ago, I noted that irenic debates, where we try to understand the “other” have a poor format. It would be better to turn them on their head. Note, this would not be good for a debate between political candidates who are trying to differentiate and accentuate their difference. However, in debates of the Chesterton/Shaw variety (or on left/right issues dividing us, say abortion for example) this format might work better. I don’t know how it would convert to a written format, ala blog essays either. The basic idea is as follows:
- A moderator introduces the question debated and the sides being taken. For the following the two sides will be denote as A and B
- Side A, via Socratic questioning of B, must make a clear statement of the B’s position. When B and A are satisfied they have an understanding …
- This process is reversed, that is B states A’s position coming to an understanding through dialog with A.
- A then repeats B’s position and then states what A finds unsatisfying with that position.
- B then repeats A’s position and then states what they find unsatisfying with A’s statement.
- The moderator then thanks A, B, the audience and his/her mother for their collective forbearance and wishes all a good night.
This method attempts to avoid the problem so common today in that when A and B argue they aren’t actually discussing any common thesis. That is, A normally argues against a position assumed (by A) to be held by B, but which is not in fact what B is arguing for and vice-versa. It is in fact far easier to poke holes in a exaggerated or a simplified version of the opponents view (helpfully flawed in an easy to puncture fashion). The suggested format above is for when the opponents have come to the realization that misunderstanding of the other is a fundamental common element in our discourse. That must be removed before any meaningful dialog can take place.
So in the next publicized debates on atheism vs faith … wouldn’t it be neat if we had some common understanding before the debate began. And in fact, wouldn’t that common understanding explained by men (or women) with a gift of language?
I agree completely. These things are impossible with everybody talking past each other. Maybe you and I should have one of those debates.
Mega, mega dittos. I’d love to see any kind of debate, formal or informal, begin with each side articulating the position of the other.
By the by, Pseudopolymath is banned on my work server (hence the spotty visiting during my busy season [so many churches to audit, so little time!]). What kind of racy stuff have you been posting?
jpe,
On the banning, I suspect that I’m in a bad neighborhood, i.e., my hosting service may provide services for porn or gambling sites.
I’m going to have to do something about that I think.