Thread by @PatrickTBrown31

I used to favor the idea of framing public event conversations on controversial topics in philosophy/science/politics as “discussions” instead of “debates”...

I thought this because I thought the “discussion” framing would disarm participants and allow them to be less entrenched in their position, more charitable and more intellectually humble.

However, having watched many (and participated in a few) public event “panel discussions”, I do notice a very consequential trade-off in using the discussion framing.

When a conversation is framed as a panel discussion there is an extremely strong social norm to be agreeable and to not come off as attacking your fellow panelists.

This obviously has benefits but I find that this norm often forces the conversation to be confined to the uncontroversial portion of the topic and it forces the conversation to be superficial and borderline glib.

As an audience member, my main takeaway is often not substantive but rather is that all the panelists are very nice people who more-or-less agree on somewhat obvious things.

I learn very little and the conversation often does not force me to think more deeply or interrogate any of my beliefs. I think this undermines the purpose of having a public conservation in the first place. It’s also just boring.

Panelists usually DO have important disagreements and it would be informative to the audience to interrogate those disagreements but often times the most you get from a panelist is “the one thing I would push back on slightly is...”

Framing a public conversation as a “debate” between Position X and Position Y may seem tacky and unsophisticated but...

I think this framing liberates participants from the constraints of not wanting to seem like a jerk. It gives them social permission to make their arguments (and refute counter-arguments) as strongly as they see fit even if this comes off as abrasive or rude.

I think this is a service to the audience and it does a much better job of informing them about the premisses/assumptions/logic underlying positions than what you get when the conversation is framed as a discussion.