Online Debates Are Better Than Traditional Debates
Before we get started, everything is a debate. A debate is defined as: a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something. Debates are often conceptualized as formal but they usually aren't in the real world.
Lots of people like to argue that traditional/formal debates are a better usage of time than less formal online debates. This is a really unsubstantiated position and I think we should talk about it.
How is the traditional/formal debate format better than online debates? If it's an argument that people get paid to engage in formal debates, that argument could be disregarded by reminding people of the videos of say The Messianic Manic, a skeptic who creates videos responding to a variety of things, people, and topics but oftentimes in response to theists. These theists make responses to his videos. This is a form of debating, because these are individuals who are engaging in the same conversation and are expressing vastly different opinions and these individuals are getting paid for the content they create. When people like Ray Comfort post videos of themselves debating skeptics and/or believers of other religions they are making it possible for someone to engage in debates with them, online and make money off of it, because YouTube has a program called "YouTube Partner" where YouTubers get paid based off of an algorithm which includes a component factoring in views YouTubers get. Nowadays this is just one way an online debater could get paid.
How is the traditional/formal debate format better than online debates? It is an argument based off of the "style" or prestige assigned to debaters? That's a silly argument. The idea that any sort of prestige should be automatically assigned to debaters is ridiculous when we look at the sort of people who've engaged in formal debates. Whether it's Ken Ham as a debater against Bill Nye, Trump against Clinton, Mitt Romney vs Obama, or David Duke as a debater in the Louisana U.S. Senate Debate on November 2nd. Remembering this allows us to effectively eliminate the idea that any person who gets to engage in a formal debate somehow deserves to be taken seriously by virtue of the fact that they are allowed to participate in a formal debate. This is related to my opinion that formal debates often become little more than exercises in speaking ability and charisma. This is not conductive to using debates to arrive at the best conclusions, which is part of why I think that formal debates are lesser than online debates.
In a formal debate a good idea could be delivered terribly and that might cause people to write it off unjustly. It's possible to avoid this if someone is engaging in a less traditional form of debate, such as writing a post online or filming a video where they can simply film something over again. Part of the reason for a bad delivery of an argument or an idea online might well be something subjective like nerves, that would be avoided if the idea had been delivered via writing. As someone who has been in a debate in a formal setting the nerves many feel are real, and can and do negatively impact someone's ability to deliver an argument effectively. If someone makes a strong argument even if it's delivered negatively that argument is still strong but a clever debater can try to poison that argument by conflating the argument with the delivery and in a debate setting that might work to change some minds or poison the confidence of their opponent. This is part of why reaching the truth or optimum solution to something via formal debates might be tricky.
How is the traditional/formal debate format better than online debates? Is it based off of the idea that this is somehow a serious way to make persuading arguments in the most effective manner? In what manner? Based off of views? If that's the case it's easier to engage in online debates and then share them online. Whether this is done by video, by text, or by audio, is up to the people who engage in debates. However, formal debates are little more than opportunities for differing personalities to express limited opinions on complex issues that deserve more serious discussions than can happen in the space of an hour to maybe 3 hours.
Online debating is superior to traditional debating partially because it's easier for people to address specific points objectively because things are available online. Let's take a debate on Facebook. If it's being done via text/typing I can quote a statement someone made exactly and respond to it objectively. I can also more easily and objectively share my sources that are responsible for me having the opinion I have on an issue. Online debating is superior to traditional debating because this makes it possible and possibly necessary to hold people to the highest standards possible. By making it possible for people to share their sources and do research on the fly we can force ourselves to not be limited in our viewing of an issue and to elevate our standards for discussing this topic.
Online debating is superior to traditional debating because it's not limited by things like a time-limit. An online debate can last forever, theoretically and that's a good thing. Traditional debates are limited and that's a problem unless someone engages debates solely for entertainment value. Whether its about politics, religion, or technology, once the "debates" are over the problems discussed in debates don't fade away. That's a problem with traditional debates that permanently forces them to be little more than entertainment but online debates are not as limited. Online debates can last for as long as parties involved want them to, which means that it is theoretically possible for an online debate to last for as long as the things which inspired these debates. The issue of undocumented immigration is what initially inspired this post because I got into an argument online with someone over it and it took place over 9 hours with various comments coming in every few hours coming from myself and others who saw the topic and wanted to get involved in the conversation. This debate could continue today if any of the parties involved want it to. And it didn't solve undocumented immigration or even possibly change the mind of the person I was debating with originally but that doesn't reduce the effectiveness of the debate. I shared sources which helped to shape my opinions on this matter and I responded to the comments and concerns of other people in a way that is forever accessible online if someone searches for it.
Another reason that we should talk about superiority of online debates is that they eliminate the barrier of entry into debating. By eliminating the barrier of entry to debating they allow for more participants in a debate which is a good thing. If debates are meant to allow for the strongest ideas to come out on top the barrier of entry should be low, not high. The strongest arguments are not always going to come out of the academia or out of those who are traditionally schooled. Additionally exposing younger and/or differently educated people to the sorts of debates that are going on in an interactive way could encourage them more than merely watching/listening to a debate by academics could. I was exposed to debating myself at an early age and it increased my thirst for knowledge.
In my opinion one of the strongest reasons to talk about the superiority of non-traditional debates vs traditional debates is that if you are engaged in a debate in a formal setting you often cannot do anything but debate. That's not so with less formal debates. If I am debating online I can do whatever else I want while I am debating. I could go out to lunch and debate at the same time. I am not restricting myself in my activities while I continue to pursue difficult and often controversial topics of conversation. This is a good thing. I am one of the many people who dislikes the idea of sitting in a room for hours at a time talking about a single topic but that doesn't mean I am unwilling to debate and by debating in less traditional formats I am able to debate about important topics while doing other, often equally important, tasks.
We need to have a serious conversation about what role debates and debating has in our lives and in our society and what, if any, importance less traditional forms of debating could have in our lives and in our society. And we can start by talking about it here.