Arguments and Duels
Why men disagree, from a New Yorker review of duelling history:
It emerged as an institution during the Italian Renaissance, when various aristocrats sought, by affecting an exaggerated sense of honor, to establish themselves as a social, as well as a military, class. … abstract notions of honor … enabled a man of the upper class to live a more noble life. Such a man would always keep his word, always rush to the aid of a comrade or a woman in distress, and never allow an insult or injury to himself or his family to go unavenged. … From Italy, the duel of honor spread to France and then the rest of Europe. … Although English gentlemen did not duel with the fervor of their French counterparts, duelling remained a good career move in Britain into the early nineteenth century. …
The gentry, however, took honor so seriously that just about every offense became an offense against honor. Two Englishmen duelled because their dogs had fought. Two Italian gentlemen fell out over the respective merits of Tasso and Ariosto, an argument that ended when one combatant, mortally wounded, admitted that he had not read the poet he was championing. And Byron’s great-uncle William, the fifth Baron Byron, killed a man after disagreeing about whose property furnished more game. … Courtiers … duelled to impress a princess, eliminate a rival, or curry favor with a higher-up. Instead of arguments leading to a duel, the duel became a reason to have an argument.
Even today, men argue to show their dominance, and their willingness and ability to resist domination. That strong feeling "but I’m right" may really be "I’ll be damned if I let him win."
Robin,
I think the main reason to believe debate is a "truth-discovery procedure for the auditors" is that, in many contexts, the auditors themselves believe that's what is. The obvious example is jury trials. Political debates, such as during the presidential campaign, are a weaker example, since every candidate stands for not only his point-of-view but also his own mental abilities. Voters could take a legitimate issue in both matters. But insofar as the candidates are tokens for their points-of-view, watching them debate is a way to decide which point-of-view is more convincing.
Remember I concede that debaters themselves may be personally motivated by a rather unthoughtful competitiveness. I suppose it's a bit of a mug's game saying what some practice "is", when there's no author to consult, when participants disagree, and when depth psychology and sociological points of view might impute all sorts of hidden meanings.
I agree that pre-debate talk would improve their quality. I think it's a good idea. But I'd worry it would be hard to cleanly demarcate pre-debate issues (of terminology and scope) from the debate issues themselves. Those issues can themselves be subtle, and and there's a competitive advantage to bias matters your way. Maybe there's room for a trusted third party or some more structured procedure to mitigate that risk.
By the way, great blog!
Alexis, you propose debate is a "truth-discovery procedure for the auditors" while I suggest debate is a "spectacle of combat is intended more to reveal relative mental abilities than to illuminate which conclusion is right." The lack of pre-debate talk weakly supports my suggestion - what evidence goes the other way?