Just wondering, and have lots of questions for any of those who may have an ear closer to "academia" and the like:
Isn't a "debate" supposed to be an academic confrontation between two parties in order to see which side is better? Or do I simply have a misunderstanding of the basic principle of "an academic debate?"
Is it generally understood that a debate is more about showmanship than facts? That is, is it generally understood that "winning a debate" doesn't really mean much with regards to academically (factually) supporting an idea?
Is there an academic confrontation-arena that is more concerned with facts rather than showmanship... like a courtroom... where it doesn't matter how frilly your presentation is and it only matters what facts you actually have to support your ideas?
Has it always been like this? Or has "academic debate" been... corrupted over the years?
If academic debate really is supposed to be about factual support for one's idea... what are the general mechanisms in place in order to control such a thing? Why did these always fail during Evo-Creo debates, but always work during Evo-Creo court cases? What is the fundamental difference that needs to be corrected in order to have the results of "an academic debate" actually have meaning in a factual sense?
I see... so this is not "academic debate" at all. This is "a debate."
That clears up a lot for me, thanks for the advice.
I believe I have fallen victim as to exactly what someone, somewhere was hoping of... that upon hearing the word "debate", I would immediately associate it with "academic debate" even though the two are not necessarily connected in terms of factual basis and understanding.
Sort of like hearing about "a baseball game" and thinking it is a controlled sport with many umpires and regulations, but then finding out it's actually just a family at a park where the kid keeps running around the bases no matter how many times he's been tagged out.