I'd like to kick this off with a bugbear that has had me grinding my teeth many times in my stay here, that being, the implications of Dr Craig as a "professional debater", as opposed to a philosopher. With some experience in both fields (however smaller scale than Dr Craig's they may be) let's see what insight I can offer on the matter.
Debating as a Sport vs Debating as an Academic Discipline - What's the difference?A key element of Dr Craig's work and ministry is his public debates, and anyone who has seen him at work in such an event knows that this man has the art of debating down to an art form. However, as anyone with experience in debate knows, there are many different styles, formats, and purposes to debating. For the purposes of this discussion, I will be dividing the over discipline of 'Debating' into two categories:
Sporting event and Academic discipline.
In providing examples and observations on the different types of debates, I will be drawing on my experience as a college level debater, and as the newly appointed training officer for my college debate society. I will also be drawing on my experience from having watched many debates, both professional and amateur, academic and sporting.
There are many similarities and differences between the sport of debating, and debating as an academic discipline and outlet. To that end, we will look at the similarities between the two, and then move on to three key differences that must be understood if we are to analyse Dr Craig's debate style and performance accurately. Finally, we will apply those similarities and differences to Dr Craig's debates, to discuss how they should, ideally speaking, be referenced here on the forums.
With that said, let us begin with listing some of the similarities:
The similarities.Both the sport and discipline of debating require incredibly an similar skill set. They are for the most part a form of public speaking, requiring confidence, clarity, projection, pacing, the ability to think on the fly, the subtle art of signposting, and the ability to quickly assess an argument and demonstrate it's weaknesses in logic and rhetoric.
These are speaking and thinking skills used by many people in public speaking, let alone debating. Thus, when one sees these skills employed in a set of debates, it is easy to miss the differences between a game and a passionate argument over the truth. As an example, I will explain the art of signposting as a debate technique, so that we may see how Dr Craig uses this skill masterfully in his debates, but also demonstrate how this technique is applied to many other areas of public life, and is therefore not simply a rhetorical device for winning an argument with a faulty position.
Most debate teachers and trainers will explain signposting in the following three steps:
- Tell them what you're going to say.
- Say what you're going to say.
- Tell them that you've told them.
In Dr Craig's debates, notice that he will always divide his arguments numerically. He begins by saying that he will present five lines of reasoning about the existence of God. Upon beginning each line of reasoning, he will count off that number, sometimes even gesturing by counting on his fingers. Each argument is broken into it's component parts, and numbered again, for example, the three facts surrounding the empty tomb. Again, each syllogism presented will be clearly enunciated with a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion, often counting on his fingers as a visual aid.
At each part of his presentation, substantive or rebuttal, the audience know where they are in terms of the greater picture, and are not left wondering where this is going or how long he has left. By 'signposting', Dr Craig allows the audience to see how each part of the argument fits into a bigger picture, creating a single cohesive presentation.
Now, this is not a simple debating trick. Any of you who have sat through high school speeches or college tutorial presentations will know the pain of hearing someone droning on and on in a dull monotone, barely looking up from their speech notes. Even for a less confident speaker, imagine the benefits of some signposting in the presentation. Perhaps those in the room would be less likely to stare out the windows or at the clock.
Now, with all that said, on to the more important part of this debate analysis... The differences:
The differences.As I mentioned previously, there are three key differences between debate as a sporting game and an academic discipline. Those being; Format, purpose, and rules. Each of these differences share some overlapping territory with the others, but each have a key and critical individual area in which they are important.
The format.
The first and most obvious difference between an academic debate and a sporting debate is the format of both the event itself, and the teams.
In most debating societies and tournaments, each debate society is expected to put forward a team of three people. These three people will be given the chance to speak only once per debate (there are, of course, exceptions. In the
Australs debate format, each team nominates their first or second speaker to speak again as fourth speaker, to provide an analysis of the debate up to that point, with no new substantives or rebuttals allowed). This places a high emphasis on teamwork and interplay between each speaker. Because the focus of the game is on skill and technique, each speaker will only receive a short time to speak, usually between six to eight minutes.
By contrast, an academic debate will usually only have a single speaker on each side of the debate. Because the focus of the event is on a fierce and rigorous argument over the fact of a matter, each speaker is allocated significantly longer time, opening with anything from twelve to twenty minutes, and rebutting with shorter but still considerable time periods.
Additionally, many academic debates will offer a question and answer section between the debaters and the audience, or perhaps a sit down discussion between the two academics afterwards. This is to allow the audience the chance to highlight any issues or problems they may have with the debaters substantives or rebuttals, and to reduce any chance that cheap rhetorical tricks will be allowed to simply fly under the radar. Because the focus of the sporting debate is precisely about those kinds of tricks, they will not be explored in any details, apart from in the judges decisions on who used them to the best effect.
The purpose.
As we explored briefly in the previous section, the purpose of the debate as a sporting event is to test two groups against each other in a battle of rhetological wits and public speaking. As such, topics are usually chosen with a mind towards a certain kind of vagueness, where an argument can be reasonably made for both the affirmative and the negative positions. As such, a professional debater entering into a tournament may find themselves arguing for a position that they passionately disagree with. This, as one might imagine, can lead to the notion that anyone engaging in a debate is more interested in winning than in the truth. I can personally attest to attending a public theology tournament down in our nations capital, where I saw a team have to argue for the positions that "A Christian in political leadership is permitted to tell a 'noble lie'", and was frustrated to watch this team thoroughly trounce the opposition, and take the victory.
Conversely, in an academic debate, each debater is chosen specifically for their knowledge and conviction regarding the affirmative or negative position regarding the debate proposition. In an academic debate, we would never expect to find a debater arguing a position they did not hold. This is in line with the notion that an academic debate is not a simple game, and the focus is on truth and logic over technique and rhetoric.
And, with this purpose in mind, this leads to the final point...
The Rules.
In a professional sporting debate, each speaker on the team has a specific role. The first speaker will generally lay out the entire case for their team in two or three major 'substantives', before elaborating and arguing the first one or two. They will explain which member of the team will argue which substantive, and then move on to their own. The second speaker will offer a short rebuttal on the opposing speaker before them, and then present their own substantive. The third speaker will either offer a short substantive of their own, if they have been set up for it, and then spend the rest of their speaking time rebutting the opposition. A strong third speaker can sway the entire debate, especially if they are third negative, and can use the fact that they have the final say to devastating effect.
However, this means that the substantives offered by each team must be
entirely planned before the start of the event. I have witnessed some cases where the second and third speaker developed a positively devastating substantive argument in response to the oppositions opening case, only to have it counted against their team,
precisely because the first speaker did not set them up for it.
Similarly, if the first affirmative speaker gives a definition for a key word in the debate proposition, and the first negative does not dispute that definition
in the opening few seconds of their own speaking time, they will be seen to have conceded that definition, and will have to work with it for the rest of the event. Should the second or third speaker wish to dispute a definition, and the first speaker has not already disputed it (or disputed it too late in their speaking time), their hands are tied, advantage opposition.
By contrast, this is not so in an academic debate, where the focus is, to repeat again, on truth over technique. Should a debater realise later in the event that a given definition is unfairly stacked against a given truth, they may challenge it as soon as they are allowed to speak again. Certainly, realising this later rather than sooner may not have the same psychological effect on some audiences as others, but they will not be actively penalised for it.
What does this mean for Dr Craig's debates?Hopefully by this point most community members will understand the difference between the two major kinds of debates and, by extension, the difference between Dr Craig's high school and college debates, and the debates that he participates in as a part of his work with
Reasonable Faith.
We can see many of the debate techniques used in both debate formats, such as signposting (which many detractors have called "Craig's scattergun approach", something we can hopefully put to bed as well), his attention to detail and sense of timing, and his clear speaking techniques.
However, simply because he is using these techniques, it does not logically follow that he is using them dishonestly, or with a mind towards winning the debate over arguing for a position he passionately advocates as true. This fact exists simply because his use of debate techniques does not logically follow to the fact that he is debating as a sport rather than as an academic exercise.