Thread by @chubicki

Live debates are not effective methods of revealing truth - they're stage performances.

When someone demands a live debate, I see a red flag for ulterior motives.

A thread.

In matters of serious scholarship, debates are settled in prepared and edited publications. There's time to answer points, check facts, often with referees.

Live debates are rhetorical sport, won by commanding an arena. Fun, but if your goal is truth, why would you demand them?

Take the classic tactic, the "Gish Gallop." Live debater Dwayne Gish would fire off so many misleading statements it was hard for opponents to address them all in time. The audience would leave persuaded, thinking "Wow, Gish had lots of points that his opponent couldn't answer."

Live debates also give a false impression that the viewpoints are equally valid. Each side has one champion, so they look equal even if the quality of the scholarship is unequal. This is why fringe camps demand this format - they win just by being on the stage.

Discussion panels can be good because they tend to be non-adversarial conversations designed to provoke thought.

But someone demanding live debate might be trying to shortcut the hard work of winning acceptance in edited formats that are designed to limit chicanery.