Depends on what you think debate is, I guess. After posting my comment I did realize people probably conceptualise “debate” differently. If you think debate is just a form of performance to influence people’s ideas, then sure. But if you think debate should be a form of intellectual conversation, a collaboration between two disagreeing parties in order to find truth, then what Charlie is doing couldn’t be further from that.
It’s both. But the techniques Charlie used were excellent. Debate should be done in good faith. He wasn’t debating in good faith. But the skills he had to still do what he did was phenomenal. I have no issue with his ability to use debate strategies. We could all learn something from watching him.
Depends on what you think debate is, I guess. After posting my comment I did realize people probably conceptualise “debate” differently. If you think debate is just a form of performance to influence people’s ideas, then sure. But if you think debate should be a form of intellectual conversation, a collaboration between two disagreeing parties in order to find truth, then what Charlie is doing couldn’t be further from that.
It’s both. But the techniques Charlie used were excellent. Debate should be done in good faith. He wasn’t debating in good faith. But the skills he had to still do what he did was phenomenal. I have no issue with his ability to use debate strategies. We could all learn something from watching him.