Replying to "The Prerequisites of Debate"[Dface]

[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.