l0c0dantes t1_iuhm3ip wrote
Reply to comment by Brainsonastick in Richard Branson declines invitation to debate death penalty with Shanmugam, says TV format 'turns serious debate into spectacle' by chronoistriggered
Well, its not that complicated of a question: Should the country be allowed to kill a person as punishment for crimes. You can absolutely over complicate it if you want, and even end up turning it into a entirely different question if you're really good, but its very much a thing where there isn't a right or wrong answer.
You might logic yourself into believing that there is a definitive "correct" answer, but then you'll just be annoyed when people don't inherently agree with you.
Art-Zuron t1_iuhucfg wrote
The point of debates is to provide reasoning for your own side and against the other. You have to make an argument for why you are more right. And you need to do that right for your argument to be valid.
The issue is that a significant portion of the country, and one of the two major political parties, doesn't debate in good faith. They are illogical, fallacious, and outright lying pretty much all the time. There is no way to debate fairly with them, because their base is a cult. They don't care about logic or critical thinking or truth. They care about winning and being "right" even if it means being wrong. They are contrarians.
If, during debates, every time someone makes a logical fallacy, the buzzer went off, they'd barely get to talk. Because that's all they've got, fallacies. They barely even have a platform beyond oppression.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments