A strange thing has happened: I’m getting all these debate requests now. You do one little debate (or two or three), and no one will let you forget it.
I am not a debater. Debating is a serious skill, and I’ve never been trained in it — all I’ve got is a pile of knowledge in my head and a snarky attitude, so I can disgorge heaps of information somewhat entertainingly. If that’s really what you want in your debate, OK…but I have to lay down some prerequisites.
-
I’m charging a fee for debates now. I’m a little tired of seeing my creationist opponent fêted, and the venue looking huge and expensive, while I’ve done my usual thing of waiving any honorarium. You want me, my fee is now $3000 (it may go up), plus all of my expenses covered.
-
Tell me about the organization running the event, whether it’s free or ticketed admission, if it’s for profit where the money will go. I don’t mind if you make money off the event, but I do mind if you’re going to use the cash for your gays-will-burn-in-hell campaign.
-
The question to be debated must be specific: none of this “Does god exist?” crap. Come up with an addressable topic that can be adequately covered in an hour of back-and-forth.
-
The question ought to be one I’m competent to answer: I’m a biologist, not a physicist, so don’t bother asking me to debate the implications of dark matter or the age of the earth (actually, that last one would be stupid no matter who you ask: it’s a settled issue.) Get someone else in the appropriate field.
-
Tell me exactly who I’m debating. Lately, there’s been a tendency to try and get me to agree, and then spring a ringer on me. Really, you don’t have to keep it a surprise — I’m not afraid of anyone, but some people I’d rather not associate with, because they’re nuts. Or evil.
-
The format must be clearly spelled out ahead of time. There’s no point to two half-hour segments, pro and con; short intro, thesis, and rebuttal is better, with time for actual discussion, and a Q&A.
-
Get a third-party moderator. No, the pastor of the church sponsoring my opponent does not qualify.
When you write to contact me, you should have all of that spelled out and ready for my consideration. If you don’t, why are you even trying to organize a debate? You are not ready.
Even if you meet all of my requirements, I might still say no. I’m not enthusiastic about debating. You could try offering more money…but even then, it’s the whole package I’ll be looking at.
If I’ve discouraged you from requesting participation in a debate, that’s fine. There are plenty of other godless debaters out there. May I recommend Aron Ra or Matt Dillahunty? They’re experts at this. Jamila Bey is also an experienced debater. Russell Glasser has been active on the Atheist Experience TV show. Mano Singham is a good choice if you’re looking at physics problems. Ed Brayton has been a debate coach, and has Opinions.
OK then? I’ll probably make this information a specific page in the header bar eventually, just to simplify my life a little bit. You want to invite me to debate someone? Read this first.
Ed Brayton has Opinions? I’m shocked to hear it. Has he seen a doctor?
So PZ is not going to come to my garden shed and debate me on the topic of the Reptilian Illuminati’s Hollow Earth New World Order, and how to use homeopathic cubed time to fight them off? Cowardice.
$3000 + travel expenses, sure, I’m willing.
Typical, you are just trying to cash in on your notoriety aren’t you?
Seriously I can see how this will be fodder not only for the theists, but also for the anti SJW’s. Not that anything you say won’t be fodder for them.
I won’t ever willingly watch a debate again until technology steps in and erases the advantages of aggressiveness and aggressive ignorance.
1. Debaters locked in soundproof booths, each with a microphone.
2. Either microphone can be on, but not both.
3. Debate runs on a chess clock… each debater has a set amount of time.
4. The debate ends when both their times are expired.
This may not need to be in your list of prerequisites, but I would include at some point. Agreeing on some basic definitions beforehand that are read by the moderator before the debate (and printed in the pamphlet). Most of the debates that I have listened to lately have been back episodes of Reasonable Doubts. If they are debating about god, they tend to start off with their definition of what god is. At times your not even sure if both people are using the same definition.
Time limited debate is a terrible way to explore any question. The format naturally favors the more dishonest and manipulative party.
No serious legislative, legal, scientific, or technical body uses it to settle any question. All rely on ways to extend debate as needed, adopt extensive written supplements into the record, or both.
The only proceedings I know of that make use of that format are oral arguments before the US Supreme Court, which are typically irrelevant because the case is argued best in the briefs, and that is what the justices really pay attention to. This is perhaps the one thing Justice Thomas and I agree on (though he makes his case in a counter-productively dickish way).
Yes, latveriandiplomat, it wasn’t a completely thought-out response. There needs to be some limiting of Gish Gallop-type nonsense.
davidnangle #5
3. a. If a debater touches on an idea, then the debater must move to explore said idea.
3. b. A debater may adjust an idea at any time, but this must only be done on said debater’s turn and only after the debater has announced “j’adoube”.
The person running sound gets to decide who is worth listening to? Not the worst idea I’ve heard. At least they’ll be stashed away somewhere, so nobody has to watch them pretend as if they’re ignorant or impartial (or do nothing), as we get with official “moderators.”
With or without increments? :)
Actually, now that I think about it, that’s a serious question: maybe it should increase slightly for each person until a maximum of, say, 10 or 15 claims have been made, then time runs out normally. That would put some pressure on Gish-gallopers, wouldn’t it? Of course, depending on how you count “claims,” those numbers are still probably too big for a lot of sorta-reasonable debating topics, but you get the idea. Spending your time on substantiating your claims and so forth is a good idea in the first place, and if your dozens of points can all be refuted with my one or two, that would be a way to not just limit time but control the way it’s being used, so that this little game can (maybe) be more constructive.
consciousness razor, my initial thought was, the one with the live mic has the option of hitting the clock when he’s done, thereby shutting off his own mic and turning on that of his opponent.
“Claims” counting is interesting. As is the option of challenging: “Is that an opinion or a fact?” Whereby a team of researchers could score that by the end of the debate.
Actually, that one-mic-at-a-time thing is how all political interview shows should be done.
@8: davidnangle, My comment wasn’t specifically directed at your proposal. All of these debates have some notion of “equal time”, though you are right that the more unscrupulous side can abuse the rules to break even that, and yes, some mechanism to address that would be an improvement, though not the complete solution to my problems with the format.
Latvariandiplomat @7:
My thoughts exactly. I’ve seen a lot of debate trolls bluster about skeptics being afraid to debate “where there’s no place to hide.” My response: The trolls are hoping to hide behind the clock. And this is usually in response to a skeptic who puts everything in a written format where citations are typically accompanied with hyperlinks, which is far more transparent than any spoken debate can ever be.
I agree that debate is a poor way to resolve scientific issues — and I said as much.
If the money requirement discourages more of these casual debate requests, I’ll have no complaints. Otherwise, I’m not going to let the disparities I see slide by anymore: every time I debate a creationist, they rent a great big space (not cheap), arrange pre-debate interviews with local Christian talk radio, take him out to a nice dinner and treat him well…and I’m the neglected cheap date. No more!
I wonder what your “expences” would include?
Bronze Dog:
Precisely. I find that can be way more edifying and allows for far more thoroughness, and a far better indication of who is being accurate and actually providing quality information honestly, than in a “formal” debate. Debates are just games. Overly esteemed games that are easily mistaken as a forum for arriving at “truth” when it is really all about rhetorical skill, with facts alternately being a very convenient weapon or a very cumbersome and complicated weapon that might not be able to match the quick and dirty approach of appealing to Common Sense.
I didn’t see it in your list of conditions, but you should insist on an unedited recording of the entire event so there is something to go back and check for verification & historical purposes. It’s come up before, in a “we said, they said” kind of way with no independent way to check. Just sayin’
“You want me, my fee is now $3000 (it may go up), plus all of my expenses covered.”
may I suggest that you also stipulate a revenue sharing of any sales generated by the debate? If they are selling tickets/books etc. at the event – you should get a cut. If they are selling DVD’s of the debate later, you should get a cut, if they use the debate to ask for donations, you should get a cut -if you are used to declining the fees- donate them to a charity of your choosing…
You should set up a web form and require all debate requests get passed through that form. Everything else gets immediately binned.
We’ve moved to this format for specific IT Support requests that demand certain information, especially where we want to prevent people from passing in other information.
In our case.. We take support requests by email but we process requests to get network accounts created for new users only through a web form.
By insisting access requests come through a web form, we ensure we have all the information about the user required and we prevent people from casually passing us confidential identifiable information, like a date of birth and SSN along with their full name. We need that information for new-hires but we don’t provide a method form Dept Admins to send it to us, and we include instructions to call or visit in person to drop off that confidential information.
Your situation isn’t entirely different.
By posting form questions that addresses each of your requirements, and by requiring them to have a value to submit the form, you will force proposers to meet your requirements.. or the form will never go through. For something like #4, you can structure the question to force them to comply.. perhaps: “Indicate which topic(s) in Evolutionary Biology will be addressed in the debate. Include the debate subject as you intent to publish in advertisements. Final copy please.”
You should also specify media rights. You don’t want an edited version of the part where you say “i don’t know” to be the only one showing up in “expelled II: the expulsion”
And no blue M&Ms in the green room!
Ray’s suggestion at #18—”insist on an unedited recording of the entire event so there is something to go back and check for verification & historical purposes”—is a good one, but it does depend on PZ’s trusting the godbots to actually (a) have an “unedited recording of the entire event”, and (b) provide that recording. I think a better condition might be something like “PZ reserves the right to record the entire proceeding himself, and to raise one hell of a stink in the event that the godbotherers release a recording which distorts what PZ said.” The phrasing could use a little work, but the intent should be reasonably clear?
Agreed on the media rights issue. At a bare minimum, you should be provided with an unedited copy of any recording or transcript, with the understanding that you reserve the right to post it here or elsewhere at your discretion. I would say that you also should reserve the right to forbid distribution for sale of edited copies. Ie, if someone just wants to turn a camera on at the beginning, and turn it off at the end, then they can sell the DVD to anyone who is interested. If, however, they edit the content in any way, they have to provide you with a final edit and then get approval to distribute for sale–this keeps them from using an edited version they sell to the gullible to get cash without even showing your side of the debate honestly.
I’ve got mixed feelings on the honorarium, but travel and food expenses should be covered, yes, and in a fashion that isn’t going to require you to hound them for reimbursement. (Basically, you should be getting confirmation from the hotel that the organization sponsoring the debate is picking up both your room and your restaurant/room service tab for the duration of the trip.)
I get that the honorarium is needed to weed out the most frivolous challenges, but perhaps you could agree to a mutually acceptable charity (particularly if the sponsoring organization seems to be even-handed).
DavidNagel @#5 said: “3. Debate runs on a chess clock… each debater has a set amount of time.”
Of course that would not and *cannot* work. A creationist or any other obscurantist can easily make a dozen false statements in under 1 minute. A rational informed response to each of those to a largely scientifically illiterate audience can easily require 15 minutes apiece, This is one reason why the Gish gallop is so effective. If the audience were not suffering from scientific illiteracy no “debate” would ever occur. You have set up a guaranteed failing scenario.
zetopan @25
I agree completely. “Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics” takes less than five seconds to say but showing how this claim is false would take at least five minutes.
How much of that is up front? Not that I wouldn’t trust the buggers…
@Kevin Anthony:
Yeah, good point. Though in truth they might be more trustworthy than some universities I’ve lectured for.
Many of the invitations are at the behest of student groups, even if the contracts are with the university and the actual invitation is done by some competent staff or faculty person.
The university requires you to do the speech before payment… and I’m okay with that in theory, since the University presumably has institutions set up to make sure it pays its bills.
In practice, however, unless the students remember to ask for the check on the day of the speech, the faculty isn’t tracking that sort of thing, and once you’re no longer on campus, it can take a **year** to get paid. Literally. My longest wait was 10.5 months, but I have no doubt some people waited a year. One person that I don’t consider **entirely** trustworthy talked about collecting a speaking fee for work done at an annual event when she came back to speak again the next year. If true, that’s at least one person, and given that it routinely took me 4-6 months to collect if they didn’t cut a check the day of the speech, the odds that that is a unique experience are low.
So, that’s to say you might not trust them any less than a small-time speaker trusts the university apparatus, but that’s a pretty darn low bar. Asking for the check to be turned over immediately before the event isn’t unfair to my mind. Obviously you’re already there and willing to speak.
If the check bounces later, that’s another problem, but I would insist on cash.
Off topic – the “getting the cheque beforehand” reminds me of the story of Deep Purple arriving in the US for a tour in 1973 or 1974 and getting given a cheque for the tour plus royalties etc right before the show.
So David Coverdale did the show with a cheque for a million dollars in his back pocket.
quentinlong @ #23:
PZ could also demand that they provide him a copy of the recording immediately following the event, or within five minutes of the event ending.
This is not hard. Many bands now record their live shows and put those recordings up for sale as fans are leaving the venue. You simply set it up to burn to disc, or save to a small, cheap external hard drive (a USB stick or such) the second the recording is turned off. So the venue can record, but has no chance to edit before giving it to PZ.
Of course, that’s no guarantee they wouldn’t try to violate that term, in which case someone could still record for PZ anyways, just to be sure.
Or, PZ could simply stipulate that audience members should be allowed to bring in their own recording equipment and record the debate. One of those could be a friend of PZ’s, and provide him with a copy of the recording.
————————————-
freemage @ #24:
I’m fine with the honorarium because it exists as an obstacle. PZ doesn’t want to have to do all these debates, so demanding a $3000 honorarium weeds that out. If someone is willing to pay the honorarium plus expenses, it will show that they have something potentially worth PZ’s time.
I think it’s smart, really.
That’s not too bad, either.
Biological organisms are not a closed system.
How much time to I have left?
*ding*
@26: Debating is, as PZ said, a skill and not one everyone has developed. And sure it’s not the best way to settle ideas. But the limited audience attention span works both ways and the voice of rationality is not helpless.
If someone spits out 30 lies about evolution in 30 minutes, one approach for the skilled debater admits he can’t hit *everything* in the time allotted, picks 2-3 that he can demolish articulately, and lets the audience deduce what it means about the opponent’s credibility. In effect it lets the pro-science side pick the field of battle.
You definitely need prep though. I don’t think knowing the science is nearly enough.
I’m thinking this is a way for PZ to, never, debate, anyone, ever.
Ineresting ideas, though.
@woozy (#31)
That assumes a scientifically literate audience that know what “closed system” means and why it’s relevant.
“Read up on it: the second law of thermodynamics only applies to isolated systems, where neither matter nor energy can enter or leave. The Earth is not an isolated system: the sun shines.”
…Less than 20 seconds, I guess?
Anyway: I’m with comment 23.