Morning, all. I’m going to spend most of the day answering a backlog of e-mail. Why am I telling you this? Not quite sure. I’m just thinking out loud.
I’ve been “challenged” to a debate on the Bill Bennett fiasco, and the odd thing is I’d consider doing it if the challenge were serious. Last year a law school student organization invited me to debate on…something. Can’t remember. I was offered a decent fee to do it, but the invitation was last-minute. Having no public debating experience and little time to prepare my argument, research my opponent, etc., I had to refuse the offer.
But…I like the idea of openly discussing a topic where each person lays out his argument, the other guy cross-examines him, lays out his argument, and so on. We all have opinions, and I dare some many of them are not based on facts but impressions and emotions. In a formal debate, if done properly, a pattern of truth emerges on one side. People get to hear both sides of an argument and the strengths and weaknesses of the argument. Emotional, ill-informed tirades edify no one.
I would debate someone only if the formal rules of debating applied. What my challenger has in mind is probably a mini-shout-fest with two people pulling “arguments” out of the air at random with no coherent structure or goal. I would engage only if there were a neutral moderator who followed the rules and made sure the debaters did the same: time limits for opening statements, arguments, rebuttals, and closing statements.
People think what they do on blogs is debating. For from it, my friends. Sometimes intelligent discourse emerges, but not often. We tend to get emotional, which usually obscures the point being made. I sense that most who disagree with me have a hard time controlling their emotions, and almost nothing is gained when we reach that point. People don’t know how to formulate an argument or rebut someone else’s based on facts and rules of logic. The ancient Greeks knew what they were doing.
For instance, the rebuttal portion of a debate involves exposing the weakness in your opponent’s argument and/or offering evidence that would tend to disprove it. Unfortunately, what most people do on blogs and on shout-down radio and TV is “rebut” a point the person never made (the “strawman” fallacy) based on his own prejudices and assumptions while veering wildly off-topic, attacking the person who made the argument and assuming that because one thing follows another, it must have caused it, etc. Hey, I’m guilty, too.
James White is a skilled debater, and it’s almost embarrassing to listen to him defeat an opponent who clearly has no idea how to structure an argument or respond to someone else’s. If I’m going to engage in public debate, it must be a real debate with rules.
If you’ve engaged in formal debates, let me know. This is a skill I want to develop.
Wow. I started out talking about e-mail. The other stuff just popped into my head. So I’ll answer my e-mail now.
Addendum: If you’re in town on October 11, you may want to attend a conference at Heritage called Reclaiming Our Destiny.
Unrelated Update: No whites allowed.
Bill Bennett and the First Law in Public Debate
Yoest, Yoest, Bennett, c. 1998 Bill Bennett, host of Bill Bennett’s Morning in America made a statement in his morning commentary and made a story in main stream media. He said, words to the effect, if every black child…
Trackback by Jack Yoest — 10.05.05 @ 9:51 am
You’re right to desire rules, La Shawn. Shout fests get one nowhere — unless you’re a leftie and have a decent crowd in the audience backing you up.
Just look at how Chris Hitchens took apart George Galloway; despite his yelling and the hooting/hollering of the vastly leftist crowd, Galloway was clearly overmatched by any moderately objective evaluation.
Comment by Hube — 10.05.05 @ 10:19 am
You hit the nail on the head with (the strawman) it is the most frustrating thing, and i experience it all the time. If you can’t make a point, just change the subject. with rules and a moderator i think it would be great. in fact, i think it would be a good idea for a tv show, with major personalities like yourself, or rush, or coulter, going against some smart liberals like oliphant, or anyone on the ny times editorial board. kind of like the old crossfire with buchanan and kinsley. maybe msnbc could pull some ratings with a show like that.
Comment by Chris — 10.05.05 @ 10:58 am
By the way, Bennett is a skilled debater himself. Perhaps he could give you pointers on some resources on debating. I must admit that I do not trust the Left. They’re great on double standards. Any guidelines they might agree to might be thrown out the window at the first exchange. This does not sound like a great idea to me. After reading some of the blogs and their comments, it’s clear rational discourse is beyond some people.
Comment by Evon — 10.05.05 @ 11:30 am
La Shawn
Do the formal rules for debate in the public arena differ than the rules that Wittenburg Gate Blog has delinated on ?
Maribel Hernandez
Comment by Maribel Hernandez — 10.05.05 @ 1:33 pm
Hi La Shawn,
I’m new to your blog. Your blog was first brought to my attention from my having listened to your discourse on the Make It Plain program on The Power XM radio station Monday evening. The verbal exhange was memorable if only for the fact that both you and the program’s host were unable reach an agreement for you to finish the show.
I noticed you began to start a blog about your experience Monday evening but did not follow-up and complete your thoughts in the morning after “decompressing” the evening prior. I was looking forward to hearing what you had to say.
My point here is related to your email on debating. You seem to have painted a broad brush. Who are you referring to when you said “People don’t know how to formulate an argument or rebut someone else’s based on facts and rules of logic.”? Some in your reading audience would take that as a somewhat condecending statement.
I hope this is not in reference to your experience the other night. If it is and if I may be so bold as to offer some advice. That would be to stand back and place yourself in the shoes of, the in this case, the radio show’s host and try to see things from his perspective and empathize - a truly difficult thing to do in the heat of the battle. That is not to say you will nor have to agree. This is sometimes referred to as grace under pressure.
However, as the Christian you say you are, you will have a lot less difficulty moving past those things which make it hard to communicate when you show compassion. This is the primary quality Christ exemplified. I apologize if I have offended you, but as a fellow Christian, we know it’s not about who is right or wrong, it’s about doing the will of the Father. I pray you will. Thank-you for taking the time to read this rather lenghty email. Shalom and God bless.
Comment by Kevin — 10.05.05 @ 3:18 pm
Thank you for the prayers, Kevin. Believe me, I need all I can get. I won’t be making any public statements about the show.
I frequently paint with a broad brush (as most people tend to do when they’re writing), especially on my personal site. I didn’t mean to condescend to anyone in specific because I do the same thing, which I thought I made clear in the post. You’re quite obviously a new reader to LBC or to the blog format in general; otherwise, you’d know people will complain about what I blog whether I condescend or not. There’s no “winning” in a format like this. I just have to write what I want and how I want. And pointing out what Christ said isn’t offensive to me. It’s the way people use his words, particularly non-Christians. I am not above chastisement or being reminded of what my focus should be.
Comment by La Shawn — 10.05.05 @ 3:27 pm
I’m looking into formal debate as well…boy, I love to debate informally, but I always long for the decent rules, the time, and the cool suits (j/k) you get to wear.
I pray God works through you in all that you say!
Sidenote: Do you use the Yahoo IM?
Comment by Agent Tim — 10.05.05 @ 4:04 pm
Probably not as often as I should, but I’m on right now. I just got your message.
Comment by La Shawn — 10.05.05 @ 4:06 pm
I think Chris (#3 above) has a great idea.
A TV show, with plainly stated rules would be a great idea.
Doubt that the MSM would go for it though..it would cut into their monopoly on viewpoint exposure (bias presentation).
I wonder if there would be a way to do it?..Maybe in PBS?
Comment by Richard A. Strickland — 10.05.05 @ 5:02 pm
La Shawn,
Our media today does not like reasoned and rational debate! A certain civility has gone out in favor or sound / image bites that put a “Christian Lady” such as yourself on the defensive in debates. I remember some liberal attacked you in some forum recently. Your Christian and Conservative Views are not approved of by the “politically correct” public media. Enjoy your “new toy” from Michael Dell. He learned twenty-one-years ago (at 19?) that he could purchase components of IBM PC and sell them cheaper with a Dell. He sold enough subscriptions to Houston Chronicle to purchase a BMW while in high school in Houston area before moving to Austin to enter UT. Both parents were financially successful before he entered college. He is claimed to be have assets on 18 billion dollars.
James M. Barber
Comment by James M. Barber — 10.05.05 @ 6:45 pm
Well if you do decide to jump into a debate someplace, you can’t go wrong if you are armed with Thomas Sowell.
Indeed, I predict you will prevail against all comers. Consider for example his latest book “Black Rednecks, White liberals”, showing that much of what passes for the “authentic” culture of blacks is in fact a reflection of the low end white “cracker” culture that enslaved blacks in the American South.
The dominant white “redneck” culture of the slaveholders was marked by things everybody today attributes to blacks, including:
- boastful posturing (compare to today’s rappers),
- high rates of violence,
- touchy macho pride easily erupting in violence,
- high rates of illegitimacy,
- lack of thrift,
- lagging development of employment skills,
- neglect of and disdain for education,
- sexual promiscuity,
- lively music and dance,
- flashy, flamboyant oratory styles and rhetoric by religious leaders,
- and high rates of substance abuse.
Note that flashy preachers, violent posturing and lively music and dance ain’t exculsively a black thang historically. Indeed, such elements above were not unique to white southerners in America, They go way back to England, particularly northern England and parts of Ireland, before major emigration to the American South, and before most of these people had even seen a black face.
Many today shake their heads at black dysfunction, and the crude, violent antics of “authentic black voices” like rappers, “keepin it real” with da peeps. But in fact all the negatives that mark poor blacks today were part and parcel of the culture of their former slavemasters.
Even the aristocrats of that culture manifested a penchant for touchy pride and hair trigger violence, as evidenced by the obsessive observance of the duel in white Southern culture. Further afield, the white Irish also showed similar patterns. A white historian has pointed to similar patterns that backs Sowell’s analysis up. See “Cracker Culture” by Professor Grady McWhiney.
None of the above is meant to stereotype white southerners, among whom historically, there has been trememduous diversity. But the patterns above show up in places ranging from hilly areas of white Appalachia, to the hard scrabble bayous of white Mississippi. They are also only general patterns that eased over time as white culture improved- yes, improved. It certainly was no “baseline” of perfection or goodness to begin with. There is no reason blacks cannot do the same.
This data gives you tremendous flexibility. You can hammer both liberals and conservatives as needed.
In a way, many from both groups tend to conceive of blacks as dysfunctional, hopeless basket cases. But as the historical data shows this dysfunction is quite similar to the elements that marked the white people that enslaved blacks, the so-called “cracker” culture. It is useful data to eviscerate those on the far right who gleefully pinpoint “uncivilized” black behavior, when in fact the white historical record on such behavior is less than impressive, using white norms themsleves as the standard of measurement. And I am not even going to get into the patterns that marked the white Irish.
It will be useful too in tackling those liberals who think blacks are special “head” cases in need of the “guidance” of assorted bureaucrats and “advocates”. You can show that the white record is hardly sterling, but point to improvements that took place over time. Blacks can follow the same path without being treated as basket cases.
Indeed your database will show that blacks had already pulled themselves up “by their bootstraps” PRIOR to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and PRIOR to Affirmative Action. In fact on certain measures like illegitimacy, crime, etc, the black rate was LOWER in times past than today, and on things like marriage rates or labor force participation, black rates were actually BETTER than whites in certain decades after the Civil War. In the field of education, black strivers prevailed in the teeth of the Jim Crow era. Black soldiers from various northern states for example during WWI, scored higher on Army mental tests than white Southeners from certain states. And that was circa 1918.
This data gives you a measure of independence from certain white conservatives who still inaccurately insist that blacks “haven’t pulled themselves up by their bootstraps” and who insist (in polite code or worse) on seeing blacks as some savage throwback- a dusky “missing link.”
The data in fact shows that blacks have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, no thanks to them or white liberals. And it shows the white record to be unimpressive historically on numerous aspects of “civilized” behavior. Finally the Christian faith enables all to be put under the microscope and found wanting. Common solutions and mutual trust can thus proceed from this greater baseline.
Comment by Enrique Cardova — 10.05.05 @ 10:31 pm
In formal debates, does one go into the debate with your side chosen? maybe it would keep people more “honest” (and having to debate based on rules, not feeling) if you went into a debate prepared to take either side and sides were chosen after you got there.
The point would not be to “win a point for your side” but to make the best case possible for the side you were chosen to make and let the facts speak for themselves.
Comment by My Boaz's Ruth — 10.06.05 @ 1:00 pm
Agreed, IF the scenario was an academic setting- like Rhetoric 101 class on campus or something, where students learn to debate both sides of an issue. In any real world arena where LaShawn appears however, she will pretty much have her side chosen up front, as will her opponents. I can’t see her endorsing welfare dependence or abortion for example. If she were to appear against Al Sharpton for example obsessing about appearing “evenhanded” she will be destroyed in the debate. Nothing wrong with choosing sides, and making a hard-nosed, forceful argument based on the facts. Will she make the best case for her pre-chosen side? Of course, and part of that is understanding an opponent’s arguments and rebutting them effectively.
Comment by Enrique Cardova — 10.06.05 @ 1:10 pm
Hi LaShawn, congrats on PJ Media.
Be ready with your facts, be ready for them to try to distort them. Perhaps have a mechanical bell or somesuch to indicate a rules violation?
Bennett is getting a bum rap — because the Leftist media wants to call Reps racist.
The whole media point is to claim Reps are racist.
So that 89% of the voting blacks will vote Dem, no matter how bad the Dem programs have been for blacks.
In the only time I’ve ever used the n-word on my blog, I ask: Are Christians to Reps like blacks are to Dems?
tomgrey.motime.com/1128688713#502451
Meaning, do the top Reps pay lip service to Christian concerns in order to get pro-life Christians to vote Rep no matter what? This is part of the Miers debate — is she openly pro-life/ anti-Roe?
I, personally, think she’s 90% to overturn, with Roberts only 80%. But the inability of a Rep majority controlled Senate to even vote yes/no on a justice whose judicial philosophy says Roe is bad; this inability is frustrating.
If you think my use of the n-word is offensive, please let me know. Thanks,
Tom Grey
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 10.07.05 @ 12:05 pm