Debate me, Bro!

The School of Athens. Print by Giorgio Ghisi, of painting by Raphael, via Wikimedia Commons

What most people call “debate” really is not.

I found the Wikipedia article quite amusing. My favourite bit was where it says: “...debates emphasize logical consistency, factual accuracy, and emotional appeal to an audience.”

I guess one out of three isn’t bad?

Even so-called “formal” debate, where there are rules, judges, and guidelines for acceptable conduct, are more about competition than about truth. A well-spoken, logically-consistent, and fact-based argument can “win” a debate, and be entirely wrong. In contrast, a logically consistent, fact-based correct argument can “lose” a debate, if the speaker is less clear or compelling than their opponent.

And that’s the best-case scenario.

Before I go down that rabbit-hole, let me note that I find “formal” debate interesting and think it builds useful skills around public speaking, consistency, logic, and rhetoric – just don’t pretend that it necessarily leads to “truth”.

For examples of “proper” debate, have a look at Intelligence Squared.

Most of the time, though, “debate” is nothing like that. It’s usually about scoring “points” on your “opponent”, or trying to generate “sound bites” which will be used later (often used out-of-context, to make bad arguments look reasonable, or good arguments look silly). Consider the climate “debate”, which I have discussed previously.

Now consider the “debates” that people like Steven Crowder have with university students or passers-by. Interesting to note that they usually debate people who are young, inexperienced in debate, or both. And even then, they frequently uses “gotcha” comments or questions – for example, asking about a specific case, then pretending that the opponent “lost” credibility if they were not familiar with the case and did not have a ready response (assuming the case existed in the first place – not infrequently, the points appear to be made up on the fly).

An amusing side-note about Crowder is that he’s happy to debate people he thinks he can beat, but appears reluctant to debate people who might give him a run for his money. A wonderful example of this can be seen in the almost-debate between Crowder and Sam Seder, and the aftermath.

I assume Crowder was reluctant to debate because Seder is a knowledgeable, experienced speaker and debater, and would most likely have “destroyed” Crowder in a debate – particularly since Seder knows the majority of “tricks” Crowder usually employs. Recently, Seder appeared in a debate with “20 Donald Trump supporters” – several clips of which went viral, usually due to the views expressed by Seder’s “opponents”.

And yet Crowder, and others like him, pretend to be champions of “free speech”, and pretend to be interested in the “marketplace of ideas”. I would argue that both points are false.

While I consider freedom of speech to be a human right, as recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this refers to freedom of expression, not freedom from consequences for what you express. Consider:

“Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.”

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 18, 19, 20, via Wikisource.org

Crowder has the right to express his views, and he is very happy to make comments like “facts don’t care about your feelings”.

In the same way, however, I have the same right to express my views, such as pointing out that I consider much of what he says to be racist, misogynistic, and frequently false. I can also say that, while his false statements may simply be incorrect, it is my opinion that his apparent refusal to reconsider his positions in spite of being offered clear and contradictory evidence demonstrates that he is often arguing in bad faith, and often lies.

I also have the freedom to recommend that people not consume his content, and not go out of their way to provide him with a platform for his views, but I am a private citizen, not a government entity. In addition, other non-government entities ALSO have the right to not consume his content, or go out of their way to provide him with a platform.

Crowder, however, considers this sort of thing a “violation” of his rights. In one example, Facebook (a private company) suspended his channel for false claims related to the 2020 election, and he filed a lawsuit claiming that he was being unfairly censored. But Facebook is not a government entity and has no obligation to provide Crowder with a platform. In addition, he apparently violated their Terms of Service, and thus his agreement with them.

Again, freedom of speech, NOT freedom from consequences for your speech.

That said, while universities are also not obliged to provide a platform to people with unpopular positions, I think there’s an argument that it’s counter-productive to not allow them. For one thing, it lets everyone see (and criticize) the points being made by such figures. For another, such events usually attract a great many protesters, and it can be very helpful to see hundreds of peaceful protesters at an event consisting of a handful of people expressing wildly unpopular ideas – so long as they are peaceful, and face social and legal consequences for hate-speech and stochastic terrorism, if they step over the line.

This is consistent with the idea of the “marketplace of ideas”, which holds that “truth” will emerge from free competition among different ideas, in a way similar to the idea of the free market, where the idea is that prices should be allowed to be determined by supply and demand, and “interference” with market freedom is generally to be avoided.

But there is a catch.

The traditional marketplace of ideas assumes that the ideas are “competing” on a level playing-field, where facts and evidence will (eventually) win out and the “best” ideas will survive. But the field is not level, and some of the actors are not operating in good faith.

I’ve discussed “bothsideism”, disinformation, and false equivalence before, and many of those claiming to support free speech and the exchange of ideas appear to be doing everything they can (for money and ideology, among other motivations) to push certain ideas, and suppress others. Such people rarely argue in good faith, frequently use mis- and dis-information, and try to actively avoid a level playing-field. In many cases, the speech is free, but the microphone is paid for.

An example of this could be a well-funded, experienced debater choosing inexperienced opponents, twisting facts, quoting out of context, and avoiding contact with people who might be able to “fight back”.

Sounds like a coward to me.

Cheers!

R