
Prison Debate Pits Inmate Team Against Students - robg
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/08/nyregion/08bigcity.html?hp
======
ghshephard
Strange format for debating. In Canada, every debate event my team went to had
all teams taking Pro/Con on every argument; we also had to (and this may be a
commonwealth element) switch between parliamentary and cross - Depending on
how well you did, you would end up arguing both sides of a point two-three
times.

There was never a "You will have to win a debate by taking just one side" type
of debate - I've always thought that representation on television was just a
simplification, and that, debate teams in the United States have to take both
sides as well. (Though perhaps Parliamentary debate style wasn't required)

I have to believe a good portion of the HN audience has had debate
classes/tournaments in High School - what was your experience? Had to argue
both sides?

~~~
hugh3
In my experience with high school level debating (in Australia), teams were
randomly assigned only one side of the argument, and each speaker spoke only
once.

I never liked it at all, because I couldn't deal with the idea that I might be
forced to argue something which I didn't honestly believe to be true.

Those with fewer qualms joined the debating team and mostly wound up in law. I
wound up in science.

~~~
warwick
Whenever possible, I try to debate on the side that I /don't/ believe to be
true. I find that debating 'my side' of the argument is harder since I take my
points as self evident and don't back them up as well.

Debating the other side means that you have to consider the argument on an
intellectual level, not an emotional one. I think keeping yourself
intellectually honest by forcing yourself to carefully examine the arguments
that you don't personally believe is great for scientists.

It's also handy, because the other team tends to bring up points you're very
familiar with as their arguments.

