I was listening to one these modern debate videos, the kind where there's a big group surrounding the dissenting voice. He or she, for that matter, would have a small table setup, awaiting for their would be examiner to jump in and duke it out, if you will- The battle of ideas, the show.

Ignorance aside

Most of Sam's would be debaters showed very little knowledge of the topics Sam was bringing up, and I say this as someone who disagrees with Sam often.

I'm only addressing this because it's hard to ignore, and because if anyone watches the so called "debate" they would find themselves facepalming enough to cause an hematoma on their face.

I also won't sit here and recommend watching the so called "debate" to absolutely anyone. I find little value in it, if I'm honest, but I do find value in reflecting upon a couple of points I did learn from torturing myself with it.

Are these "debates" useless?

Where to begin? Maybe I'll start sharing an interesting interaction that caught my attention, and one that I saved like an old handle that will one day find it's home.

Turns out Grok is not only correct here, he (assuming it's a he) also is probably answering why these conversations never really go anywhere.

Like two people speaking two separate emotional languages, and thus can't empathize or consider the other's position for one iota.

This reminds of something from my "being the boss" days.

The Talking stick

At some point in time I had 38 people working with me, on the sales floor. As you can possibly imagine, that many people interacting every day, competing for sales, for clients, was never a picnic.

Resolving conflicts was part of the routine, and even though some relationships were perma-broken, the semblance of peace had to reign supreme.

We had this trick, if you will, to solve disagreements- A stick that gave you the power of being heard. When two people had a fight, I would sit there as the mediator, making sure that only the one holding the stick was allowed to speak.

This always worked. Because it forced people to apply empathy, even if they didn't like each other much. You had to understand, and repeat what the "opposition" said, before you could have the stick and present your side of the story. I, the mediator, would only pass the stick if the person had correctly interpreted "the opposition".

What does this have to do with Debates?

Nothing, and I think that's the problem. For the most part it's just a point scoring game, and not a "let me understand" exercise. This is precisely why they don't really do much, aside from entertaining us- If we are masochists that is.

Exercises in futility.

MenO