- Gladiatior
- Procedural
- Feminist
- Academic
- Collaborative
Televised debates are almost always gladiator debates. Representatives of factions duke it out, striving to show each other up and seize prime moments for one-liners. Two things set this debate style apart from others. First, it's done for the spectacle. Everything is pitched, above all, for the wider audience: pitched to persuade, pitched to win favor. Second, no one on stage can ever admit they're wrong or express much doubt. Not only would such an admission seem weak, but the speaker making it would be seen as failing to represent—or even as betraying—their ardent supporters, and they'd be punished.
The debates that go on in courtrooms and houses of deliberation are what I call procedural. They have clear rules that must be followed closely. These are similar to games, with distinct moves. They have a lot in common with gladiator debates, in that, for example, lawyers aren't primarily concerned with sharing the complete truth. Participants want to win for their clients or constituents, and they will use persuasion to do so. But procedural debates can also have an objective focus. A jury's purpose is to select the true story. A good lawmaker wants the law that works best for everyone.
Feminist debates are similar to what's seen in classroom discussions. Everyone has a perspective and this is politely respected. There is not a pressing need to establish fact versus illusion. That would be seen as rude. Another place this style is seen is in group therapy sessions. The emphasis is on sharing, respect, listening, and turn-taking.
Academic debates prioritize theories, interpretations, argumentation, and evidence. They have some of that in common with procedural debates and feminist debates. They are often competitive in the sense that participants will take clear positions and promote those. Ever human, academic debaters can still become offended when someone doesn't agree, which introduces an ironic element of interpersonal squabbling and feuding where, in theory, it ought to have disappeared.
Collaborative debates are what I consider true debates. They take all the best qualities of the others. Participants strive for truth, uncovering it by sharing and listening to and critiquing evidence. They take positions, but they freely change these, and they know that they can play Devil's Advocate and they won't offend their fellow participants. Everyone there knows that they are all there to advance their knowledge together. Winning means learning something new, helping to build a product, or even just imagining in a fresh way.
That last kind is rarely seen, except maybe between two or three close collaborators.
