UnDebate:Is "Point-Counterpoint" a useful style of debate?
Background information[edit]Point-Counterpoint is a technique used in informative media to present two different sides of an issue. It takes the form of a structured argument, with two people presenting their viewpoint in opposition to the other, hoping to persuade the reader/viewer to adopt one of them. This is a very useful technique, especially in journalism, as it avoids bias by having a second view shown. |
Opening statement[edit] | |
Yes[edit]One of the advantages of this style is that it limits a debate in terms of time (or, in online aspects, in terms of character limit), as well as in terms of the numb er of rounds in place. The classic style is three rounds, made up of:
This allows for each argument to be made, to be countered, and to be restated simply, and hopefully effectively reaching a conclusion. |
No[edit]Even if the point counterpoint form of debate has its virtues, it hardly avoids bias, as it is practically a walking, talking false dichotomy logical fallacy. Furthermore, one of the people presenting the point or counterpoint will often be more competent an arguer than the other, regardless of the legitimacy of their position. When this is done by design, it can be even more sinister, as it results in this supposedly unbiased journalistic technique being twisted into a highly deceptive piece of propaganda. This will become especially relevant when a limit is introduced which restricts… [Redacted as exceeding the 600 character limit] |
Rebuttal[edit] | |
Yes[edit]"False dichotomy logical fallacy?" Oh, so you can pretend to use logic. What you forget is that the two sides do not need to present their viewpoints as the only ones available for the point-counterpoint form. Assuming that they do is, frankly, idiotic. And if one of the arguers sucks, then that's their own damn fault, isn't it? |
No[edit]It's the fault of whoever planned the damn stupid point-counterpoint argument in the first place. And seriously, how many times have you seen point-counterpoint arguments where they paid more than lip service to more than two points of view. |
Closing Statement[edit] | |
Yes[edit]You're only making yourself out to look like a total jack-ass. And I think everyone noted that you completely ignored the actual content of my point. |
No[edit]I don't need to pay attention to what you're saying, since I've got you so completely and totally outclassed in this argument. But given the format of the debate, there's nothing left for me to do but declare victory. And as you're unable to offer a rebuttal, you just have to accept it |
Verdict[edit]As the debate has closed, and only one side has declared victory, the adjudication suggests that the Against have won. And as a result of their winning, have shown this entire debating style to be ineffectual, and therefore have removed the validity of this entire debate. So as a result, nobody wins. For our next debate we will move to the technique of trial by combat |