Hacker News Reader

Comment by hackit2 | Hacker News Reader

You must of never gone to University because in modern academic debating you have no intentions of conceding your position, you only do when it strengthen your argument, not when it weakens it. I think it is kind of antithetical to debating but it isn't about the truth it is about convincing the audience that your a more credible by presenting a more compelling argument to support your position.

View on HN

I have a degree.

The point I am making is not that people are unwilling to concede, I don't see much change in that, but that debate itself rarely happens.

It's far more common in my experience for someone to attempt to shut down debate with a label like racist or woke, or draw a connection to a political philosophy in an attempt to discredit, rather than actually try to give valid reasons for why I should adopt their position.

Back in University I found that to be far less common. Looking from the outside in it seems as if nowadays campuses have become much more reactionary.

I think your understanding of what the objective of an Academic debate is wrong. What you're referring too isn't a debate it is the Socratic method. The purpose of the Socratic method is to reach a (mutual) understanding and intellectual discovery. The purpose a debate is to persuade and win the argument. They differ significantly in their objectives, methodologies, and atmospheres.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com