I was taught classical debate... But I was taught it in the 70's... To argue a point you didn't believe in and win was the mark of success.

Also we would switch sides halfway through debates  - I'd argue both for and against the death penalty and I'd win or lose for whichever side depending on my performance. Nobody gave a crap about what I might have personally thought. That wasn't the point. It was all about the debate.

Obviously we were being groomed to be MPs.

My year mainly became Bankers, however.

This is why all the online 'forums' in my experience (apart from this one) fail - Their participants don't know that a forum is the home of debate. They don't know that the discourse is all and that their own egos are nothing. 

We all learn more when we all talk together.

In classical debate you personally never win - What wins is the point/side/house that you are representing.

It's a great mix of ego and lack of ego. I was a star player because I would vaingloriously delight in turning on a sixpence and saying something only to rip it to shreds within minutes when I swapped sides. In classical debate this makes perfect sense because I am not personally in the equation, only my words are.

Best -

Who here remembers Balloon Debates ?

The premise is that a certain number of people are in a balloon which is just about to crash into the sea so all will be drowned. So who do you throw out to their certain death to lighten the load and save the majority ?

I promise you that we did this at school.

As an exercise my tutor had me put on a one man balloon debate. The class nominated the people in the balloon and I argued persuasively for each one. I had no choice in who I was representing.

Votes were taken after each round and then the balloon sank further and yet another person had to be thrown out...

I saved WC Fields' life that day.

Freddy Mercury got drowned first. A Conger Eel was second, Hitler (why is it always him?) was third.

Fields won because I promised the audience that if he (I) was allowed to live he would fully enjoy life. He (I) would drink deeply and remember them all.

Freddy lost because I promised them all more songs from him (me).

The Eel lost because I said they could all eat him (me) at a pinch.

Hitler finally lost (But, oh how he held on) because I said that he (I) would improve their lives. God bless them, they didn't buy it.


/\  All true.

^

Balloon debates are a common debating format. "The house believes..." is the classic one.

I can tell you've 'been there done that' Mr. F.

Looking back I can see that, although we gained some useful skills along the way, insincerity was what we were mainly being taught. I find that very interesting.

'Say anything to win' sums it all up.

But all under the pretext of pretending to have integrity as you do it.

Not right, is it ?

So why did/does the public school system need to train liars generation after generation ?

That's all debate really came down to. Lessons in lies.

The best liar won.

Convince people of something, anything and get a tick in your book.

It cheapens human interaction at the same moment it pretends to champion it.

Fair play. I just wondered why I was being trained in it. I've found it a destructive influence in my life on the whole. There comes a point where you can't believe a bloody word I say even when I'm telling the truth.

And my silly voice doesn't help.

Why does Shere Khan have an English accent ?

Disney knew... You can't trust the English !

Bless 'em.