Philosophy Now Forum

I have been meaning to attend this debate for the twenty years of its existence. Maybe next year. Fortunately, I see that tonight's debate will be streamed online. I hope to tune in.

"For 20 years, New York Mills, Minn., has hosted a fanfare for common men and women who prove that great thoughts are not the sole province of scholars and philosophers, but also of dentists and housewives, students and artists.

What began as the Great Midwestern Think-Off in 1993, and grew into the Great American Think-Off, has people from coast to coast submitting short essays for a chance to travel to the small town 175 miles northwest of the Twin Cities to debate a particular philosophical question.

Over the years, ordinary Americans have argued to audience members, who also serve as questioners and judges, that the heart is more trustworthy than the head, that we reap what we sow, that safety is more valuable than freedom, and that the sword is mightier than the pen.

Tonight's Think-Off re-examines the inaugural question, and the lone issue to end with a deadlocked audience: Is humankind inherently good or inherently evil? Contestants hailing from Bemidji; Virginia Beach, Va.; LaGrange, Ill., and Syracuse, N.Y., will converge on the town founded in 1884 by New York lumber companies."
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/158160355.html
http://www.think-off.org/

It seems to me that this is high-school mental masturbatory debating, not trying to establish the truth, but like a criminal prosecutor, trying to convince the jury to send the accused to death row whether he's guilty or not.

Will good or evil triumph this year?
That depends on the skills of the debaters, said Jamie Robertson, executive director of the Regional Cultural Center, noting that the winning argument should never be considered the "right" argument -- only the better-argued stance. In other words, Robertson said, debaters vie to make an argument so persuasive that even audience members who disagree must acknowledge it as well reasoned. "Honestly," he said, "I think this idea of, 'I'm not changing my opinion, but really, the best argument tonight was made by this person,' is a pretty neat thing to do, isn't it?"

bobevenson wrote:It seems to me that this is high-school mental masturbatory debating, not trying to establish the truth, but like a criminal prosecutor, trying to convince the jury to send the accused to death row whether he's guilty or not.

Will good or evil triumph this year?
That depends on the skills of the debaters, said Jamie Robertson, executive director of the Regional Cultural Center, noting that the winning argument should never be considered the "right" argument -- only the better-argued stance. In other words, Robertson said, debaters vie to make an argument so persuasive that even audience members who disagree must acknowledge it as well reasoned. "Honestly," he said, "I think this idea of, 'I'm not changing my opinion, but really, the best argument tonight was made by this person,' is a pretty neat thing to do, isn't it?"

There have been debates on serious issues before popular audiences in the past. I recall reading somewhere that G.K. Chesterton once debated Bertrand Russell in New York City before a popular audience. At the conclusion, the audience voted for Chesterton.

I suspect that members of the Think-Off audience (and the G.K.C. vs. B.R. audience) informally used a concept, or an intuitive judgement for, or a feel for, the "truth" as a criterion in their judging. The ordinary person can, after all, be rational in serious matters.

"Chesterton loved to debate, often engaging in friendly public disputes with such men as George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, Bertrand Russell and Clarence Darrow." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton

The late, great, scholar and cultural critic Christopher Hitchens debated Rev. Al Sharpton. An audio is available. http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/200 ... and-faith/

P.S. In 30 years, I probably tried several thousand civil and criminal matters before various kinds of juries/fact-finders, so my opinion does have some grounding in human experience.

Why not interrogate an attorney or barrister on the claim that have just put to you and report back to the forum!

Are public debates before popular audiences not held in the UK?

[quote=tbieter post_id=109644 time=1339361910 user_id=45]
[quote="bobevenson"]It seems to me that this is high-school mental masturbatory debating, not trying to establish the truth, but like a criminal prosecutor, trying to convince the jury to send the accused to death row whether he's guilty or not.
[size=125]
[b][u]Will good or evil triumph this year?[/u][/b][/size]
[b]That depends on the skills of the debaters, said Jamie Robertson, executive director of the Regional Cultural Center, noting that the winning argument should never be considered the "right" argument -- only the better-argued stance. In other words, Robertson said, debaters vie to make an argument so persuasive that even audience members who disagree must acknowledge it as well reasoned. "Honestly," he said, "I think this idea of, 'I'm not changing my opinion, but really, the best argument tonight was made by this person,' is a pretty neat thing to do, isn't it?"[/b][/quote]

There have been debates on serious issues before popular audiences in the past. I recall reading somewhere that G.K. Chesterton once debated Bertrand Russell in New York City before a popular audience. At the conclusion, the audience voted for Chesterton.

I suspect that members of the Think-Off audience (and the G.K.C. vs. B.R. audience) [u]informally[/u] used a concept, or an intuitive judgement for, or a feel for, the "truth" as a criterion in their judging. The ordinary person can, after all, be rational in serious matters.

"Chesterton loved to debate, often engaging in friendly public disputes with such men as George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, Bertrand Russell and Clarence Darrow." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton

The late, great, scholar and cultural critic Christopher Hitchens debated Rev. Al Sharpton. An audio is available. http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/200 ... and-faith/

P.S. In 30 years, I probably tried several thousand civil and criminal matters before various kinds of juries/fact-finders, so my opinion does have some grounding in human experience.

Why not interrogate an attorney or barrister on the claim that have just put to you and report back to the forum!

[color=#FF0000]Are public debates before popular audiences not held in the UK?[/color]
[/quote]

Their rule about "grounded in personal experience" disallows the vast majority of all philosophical thought. >:(