Never done this kind of formal debating, but it feels like the main skill you learn is the exact opposite of rationality: give up caring about an accurate description of the world in favor of extracting the most personal benefits from a preset view.
I’m sympathetic with that view, but think it’s far from clear-cut. For example, suppose you model rationality as the skill of identifying bad arguments plus the mental habit of applying that skill to your own ideas. When the former is the bottleneck, then debating probably has a positive effect on overall rationality; when the latter is the bottleneck, it is probably negative. Probably the latter is more common, but the effect of the former is bigger? I don’t have a strong opinion on this though.
As an anecdotal point, I have been pleasantly surprised by how often you can win a debate by arguing primarily for things that you actually believe. The example that comes to mind is being assigned the pro-Brexit side in a debate, and focusing on the EU’s pernicious effects on African development, and how trade liberalisation would benefit the bottom billion. In cases like these you don’t so much rebut your opponents’ points as reframe them to be irrelevant—and I do think that switching mental frameworks is an important skill.
1) does competitive debate do a good job of truth seeking (and/or can it be reformed to do so). I’m with many commentators in that I suspect the answer is no. The format is just not suited to it.
2) do some of the skills of competitive debate aid in truth-seeking outside of such debates. Probably, but I suspect those skills come along with habits and attitudes that make them less effective in truth-seeking than if they were learned elsewhere.
Never done this kind of formal debating, but it feels like the main skill you learn is the exact opposite of rationality: give up caring about an accurate description of the world in favor of extracting the most personal benefits from a preset view.
I’m sympathetic with that view, but think it’s far from clear-cut. For example, suppose you model rationality as the skill of identifying bad arguments plus the mental habit of applying that skill to your own ideas. When the former is the bottleneck, then debating probably has a positive effect on overall rationality; when the latter is the bottleneck, it is probably negative. Probably the latter is more common, but the effect of the former is bigger? I don’t have a strong opinion on this though.
As an anecdotal point, I have been pleasantly surprised by how often you can win a debate by arguing primarily for things that you actually believe. The example that comes to mind is being assigned the pro-Brexit side in a debate, and focusing on the EU’s pernicious effects on African development, and how trade liberalisation would benefit the bottom billion. In cases like these you don’t so much rebut your opponents’ points as reframe them to be irrelevant—and I do think that switching mental frameworks is an important skill.
There are two distinct parts to this.
1) does competitive debate do a good job of truth seeking (and/or can it be reformed to do so). I’m with many commentators in that I suspect the answer is no. The format is just not suited to it.
2) do some of the skills of competitive debate aid in truth-seeking outside of such debates. Probably, but I suspect those skills come along with habits and attitudes that make them less effective in truth-seeking than if they were learned elsewhere.