Can you provide examples of what the rules are? If my method of ‘debate’ is to pound the podium and compare you to infamous people, then a rule against that provides you with concrete advantages while being symmetrical.
In fact, any rule that applies equally to both of us but has asymmetrical results implies that a difference in the debaters, and that they are trying to debate on different terms.
In fact, any rule that applies equally to both of us but has asymmetrical results implies that a difference in the debaters, and that they are trying to debate on different terms.
Sure, that’s absolutely true.
So, just to be clear: if the rules in question apply equally to both of us, but have been selected so as to constrain you more than they constrain me because they prevent behaviors you are more likely to engage in than I am, you would call that situation symmetrical?
No. The situation is asymmetrical because I will use different behaviors than you. The fact that a rule benefits one of us while being symmetrical shows that the situation is asymmetrical. Eliminating areas from the realm of discussion (you can’t discuss the economic impact of the proposal) is likely to be a symmetrical rule which illustrates a difference between the debaters.
Other rules could simply apply equally but be targeted: For example, the rule could be that both debaters have poor lighting, no access to makeup, and will have their clothing crumpled, or know the subject of the questions but not their phrasing or order. The first set would favor the person who was less likely to convince people based on his appearance, while the last would favor the one who could think faster and be perceived as better prepared.
Then there are rules which are clearly biased, and only appear to apply equally: ‘Only brown-eyed people may talk’. I don’t think those were ever in serious discussion, and I only mention them to dismiss them.
Can you provide examples of what the rules are? If my method of ‘debate’ is to pound the podium and compare you to infamous people, then a rule against that provides you with concrete advantages while being symmetrical.
In fact, any rule that applies equally to both of us but has asymmetrical results implies that a difference in the debaters, and that they are trying to debate on different terms.
Sure, that’s absolutely true.
So, just to be clear: if the rules in question apply equally to both of us, but have been selected so as to constrain you more than they constrain me because they prevent behaviors you are more likely to engage in than I am, you would call that situation symmetrical?
No. The situation is asymmetrical because I will use different behaviors than you. The fact that a rule benefits one of us while being symmetrical shows that the situation is asymmetrical. Eliminating areas from the realm of discussion (you can’t discuss the economic impact of the proposal) is likely to be a symmetrical rule which illustrates a difference between the debaters.
Other rules could simply apply equally but be targeted: For example, the rule could be that both debaters have poor lighting, no access to makeup, and will have their clothing crumpled, or know the subject of the questions but not their phrasing or order. The first set would favor the person who was less likely to convince people based on his appearance, while the last would favor the one who could think faster and be perceived as better prepared.
Then there are rules which are clearly biased, and only appear to apply equally: ‘Only brown-eyed people may talk’. I don’t think those were ever in serious discussion, and I only mention them to dismiss them.