Replying to "The Prerequisites of Debate"[Dface]

[Dface]

Topic Summary:

I’m gonna write about the article “The Prerequisites of Debate”. It’ll be my thoughts and about the meaning of sentences. Here’s the article:

The Prerequisites of Debate

Goal:

Learn about debates, like what you need to start one.

CF Relevance:

Debates help with finding errors. Also, I think CF encourages debates to truth-seek.

[Dface]

The title:

The Prerequisites of Debate

Prerequisites are useful ideas for something to go well. Like, if you’re learning CF and you study prerequisites then that makes CF easier to do. Like, I dont think prerequisites are super necessary but they help a lot. I remember the topic of prerequisites was talked about somewhere in the forum. Forgot where.

I think the title is talking about things to do or have for a debate to be successful. I just dont know what a successful debate looks like. Like, if it has goals what are they? Is it to truth-seek? Is to find if you’re right or wrong about something? I remember @ActiveMind discussed about debates on my topic. I’ll look at that rn:

Replying to "Errors Merit Post-Mortems"[Dface]

For the better kind of debates, cooperative truth-seeking ones, then your goal shouldn’t be to win. Rather your goal should be to reach a conclusion and you should be indifferent to whether you “win” or “lose”. Because when you “lose” you definitely learned something new, but when you win you might or might not have learned anything new. The reason it’s “might or might not” is because even though you keep the same conclusion about the debate topic you might have leaned new arguments, understo…

[Dface]

@Dface

I think the title is talking about things to do or have for a debate to be successful. I just dont know what a successful debate looks like. Like, if it has goals what are they? Is it to truth-seek? Is to find if you’re right or wrong about something? I remember @ActiveMind discussed about debates on my topic. I’ll look at that rn:

Ok, I think I understand what a successful debate looks like. In a successful debate, a conclusion has been reached. That’s by at least by person participating in the debate. I think if one person doesn’t cooperate then the other can still make an objective case to conclude it.

I have somewhat an idea about what a successful debate looks like. It seems there a lot to to them like cooperating with your partner, arguing your case, or concluding the debate. I think I’d like to know how the prerequisites help. Like, what are the perquisites and what do they do?

[Dface]

Here’s the first question of the article:

@Elliot

What should you have before a debate?

I think you should have a moderator or someone keeping track. Like, one participant can keep track of the points and what to talk about. I think you should also have some experience with debates—well at least one person. That’s cuz maybe you might both not know what you’re doing and that might make the debate not successful.

I already read ahead but I think you should have things that help with achieving the debate’s goals. You should have a topic in mind to debate about. Maybe it’ll be good to also have a rationality method cuz how will you have your work checked? Like, if people are there to be convinced about the points, it would be good to be rational so the audience can understand.

Also when the quote asks what you should have before a debate, do all the answers fall under prerequisites? Like, having some kind of knowledge would count as a prerequisite for the debate. What about like physical tools? Like, maybe debate tree software? Is that a prerequisite too? What about people for the debate? Like, a moderator. Are they prerequisites too?

[Dface]

Also, on the article’s description it says this:

That the prerequisites are recommended but not absolutely required. There’s a good reason they’re recommended. If you’re trying to have a truth-seeking debate, it would be good to consider the prerequisites. Like, why are you not? What’s your experience with debates?

I think what’s recommended isn’t absolutely necessary cuz I don’t think you have to have every single prerequisite incorporated. Maybe you can have one or two. Maybe you can have some of one. The goal for debates is to find a conclusion so if you have something in mind for that then that’ll be good. Also, maybe you can be too perfectionist and try to do every prerequisite while doing a debate. Maybe it’ll be ok to make a mistake so you can fix it later.

[Dface]

Here’s the first paragraph:

@Elliot

First, someone involved should have an idea of what they’re doing. Someone should understand what a productive debate looks like. Simplifying, you should either have a debate moderator or a debate participant who is capable of being a debate moderator. If no one knows how to do that, your debate is likely to be disorganized and unproductive. Meeting this prerequisite doesn’t guarantee a good debate, but it gives you a better chance. If you don’t meet this prerequisite, consider collaboration instead. If you don’t meet this prerequisite and have strong disagreements and adversarial attitudes, consider aborting or finding a moderator.

First sentence:

@Elliot

First, someone involved should have an idea of what they’re doing.

Who are the people involved? Are they the participants? What about the audience? Or moderator? Can someone on the sidelines also assess how the debate is doing? They gotta know what they’re doing.

Also, does someone involved mean anyone involved or at least one person involved? I think if you’re debate participant one then you are someone who is involved. The same goes for participant #2. What if one person doesn’t know what they’re doing? They’re someone involved. The debate might be unsuccessful? Can the other participant still benefit? Just not as much?

What are the idea about in the quote? I see that it says that the idea is “of what they’re doing.” Is it just one idea? I think being a participant in a debate is one idea, but there’s more than one thing to do it. Like, you gotta argue your case or maybe use a rationality method or cooperate.

I think someone who is arguing about a different topic doesn’t have an idea of what they’re doing. Like, the debate was supposed to be about one topic, and that participant was supposed to argue for his case. I’m still curious about what this “idea” is about.

[Dface]

@Elliot

Someone should understand what a productive debate looks like.

Ok, that “Someone” seems to mean at least one person. I think it’d be good to look at the dictionary… Ok, after looking at Merriam Webster I found this definition:

: some person : somebody

So it means one person but we don’t know who. It’s unspecified. It’s like saying some people like eating cheesecake. We don’t know who or exactly how many but we know it’s a number.

So in the article’s quote, “Someone” is one person that hasn’t been specified. It would make sense that they should have an idea about what a successful debate looks like. That’s similar to learning something from someone who’s smarter. Like, if you want to have a successful conversation about a math topic it would be good to have someone who knows about the topic. That way you get a better idea about it and don’t have to be so lost.

What would that “Someone” do? Why are they important? They know how a successful debate looks like. That’s important. How would you know if you and your partner are doing the debate right? If you understand the goal of debates then having someone who knows how success looks like is a big plus.

[Dface]

@Elliot

Simplifying, you should either have a debate moderator or a debate participant who is capable of being a debate moderator.

The quote says “Simplifying”. That’s like making an idea simpler to understand. I remember @anonymous105 talk simplifying ideas on Comments on The Boyfriend's Introduction to Feminism . I think reading that will help with knowing what the sentence is doing. Here’s what anon said:

@anonymous105

“Basically” means you are simplifying a concept a bit. Or generalizing it. You’re reducing an idea down to its “basic” version.

In the context of my usage above, “basically” is also kind of like a hedging word. It is not necessarily saying there are things left out. But there might be, because I’m keeping things simple. Some nuanced complexity might be lost.

It is saying something like “this may not be entirely precisely technically 100% correct in all possible contexts, but for most purposes in this conversation it is close enough that we can treat it as correct.”

The first sentence:

@anonymous105

“Basically” means you are simplifying a concept a bit.

I think ET is simplifying something in the article quote. He’s simplifying the stuff about how someone in the debate should know what they’re doing. Like, they should have an idea of that. Is the quote at the top of this reply simplifying a concept? I think kind of yeah cuz instead of talking in terms of someone knowing how a succseful debate looks like, we’re talking about a more familiar concept. That’s about a debate moderator. I think a debate moderator would know what a successful debate looks like. That’s if they’re objective i think.