I argee that finding the truth and winning arguments are not disjoint by definition, but debate and finding the truth are mostly disjoint (I would not expect the optimal way to debate and the optimal way to seek truth to align much).
Also, I did not think you would mean “debate” as in “an activity where 2+ people trying to find the truth together by honestly sharing all the information”; what I think “debate” means is “an activity where 2+ people form opposing teams with preassigned side and try to use all means to win the argument”. In a debate, I expect teams to uses methods that are bad in truth-seeking such as intentionally hiding important information that supports the other side. In this sense, debate is not a good example of truth-seeking activity.
At the end, my point is that in essentially all truth-seeking context, arguing one side is not optimal. I find it perceivable that some edge cases exists but debate is not one of them, because I don’t think it is truth-seeking in the first place.
How well debate works in practice depends on the audience. If the audience have good epistemology, why would they be fooled by cheap tricks?
Debate is part of our best epistemological practices. Science is based on empiricism and a bunch of other things, including debate. If someone publishes a paper, and someone
else responds with a critical paper ,arguing the opposite view, that’s a debate. And one that’s judged by a sophisticated audience.
You have an objection to the rule that debaters should only argue one side. One sidedness is a bad thing for individual rationality, but debate isn’t individual rationality...it involves at least two, and often an audience. Each of two debaters will hear the other side:s view, and the audience will hear both.
Representatives in a trial are required to argue from one side only. This is not considered inimical to truth seeking, because it is the court that is seeking the truth, as a whole. If you create a “shoulder” prosecutor and defender to argue each side of a question, is that not rationality?
Finding the truth, and winning arguments, are not disjoint.
I argee that finding the truth and winning arguments are not disjoint by definition, but debate and finding the truth are mostly disjoint (I would not expect the optimal way to debate and the optimal way to seek truth to align much).
Also, I did not think you would mean “debate” as in “an activity where 2+ people trying to find the truth together by honestly sharing all the information”; what I think “debate” means is “an activity where 2+ people form opposing teams with preassigned side and try to use all means to win the argument”. In a debate, I expect teams to uses methods that are bad in truth-seeking such as intentionally hiding important information that supports the other side. In this sense, debate is not a good example of truth-seeking activity.
At the end, my point is that in essentially all truth-seeking context, arguing one side is not optimal. I find it perceivable that some edge cases exists but debate is not one of them, because I don’t think it is truth-seeking in the first place.
How well debate works in practice depends on the audience. If the audience have good epistemology, why would they be fooled by cheap tricks?
Debate is part of our best epistemological practices. Science is based on empiricism and a bunch of other things, including debate. If someone publishes a paper, and someone else responds with a critical paper ,arguing the opposite view, that’s a debate. And one that’s judged by a sophisticated audience.
You have an objection to the rule that debaters should only argue one side. One sidedness is a bad thing for individual rationality, but debate isn’t individual rationality...it involves at least two, and often an audience. Each of two debaters will hear the other side:s view, and the audience will hear both.
Representatives in a trial are required to argue from one side only. This is not considered inimical to truth seeking, because it is the court that is seeking the truth, as a whole. If you create a “shoulder” prosecutor and defender to argue each side of a question, is that not rationality?