Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
How many people are persuaded by watching a debate?
Popular streamer Destiny once remarked that in a public debate, only 20% are open to having their minds changed (though you can also seed doubt in your opposition's supporters), and he targets the audience with that figure in mind. Pew suggests that only 10% of people in the 2016 election decided their votes during/just after the presidential debates, but 25% said the debates were very important in helping decide who to vote for.
It seems to me that a lot of people have opinions on how large or decisive this group is without actually knowing how many people are in it.
I would expect most debates to be a draw. There's a problem with the debate format, where it's easy to present a plausible sounding factoid that's incorrect. It's more difficult for the opponent to explain why it's incorrect if they haven't heard it before.
Destiny is actually pretty bad for that. I've only seen him in one debate years ago, but he was very good at making confident assertions without any research behind them.
A big idea debate I recall was the Steve Bannon - David Frum Munk Debate on populism. Frum spent most of his time trying to bait Bannon into side arguments instead of engaging in real discussion.
I do think there's some value. They won't immediately change sides, but supporters of one side can be made to realize that their sides arguments have holes they need to look into.
Political candidates debates have another justification. Remember that votes are selecting a representative, not a policy. If a candidate is and idiot or a pushover then he won't be able to do his job.
More options
Context Copy link
An individual debate isn't a single event that either changes minds or doesn't, it's a part of a larger-scale process - you might hear some ideas in a debate, disagree with them - maybe hear them many times over the next year, argue against them yourself, agree with some parts but not others, observe some of your friends or people you follow on social media agree - and only then come around a bit. Almost nobody changes their mind over one debate, and even when a particular event changes someone's mind, it's almost always building on years of other things.
So it depends on the 'debate'! A public political debate between candidate X and Y serves a different role than e.g. the serial debates destiny engages in. One might want to get one's ideas and name out there in a "debate", one might want to persuade swing voters now, etc.
So 'being persuaded directly by debate' is a very nebulous idea. Also, it'll depend a lot on how skilled and convincing participants are - you might be more persuaded by Cicero's speeches than by kamala or pence in the vp debates!
So I don't think this is a question that can be answered generally.
Of course a "debate" is one of many ways to convince people - long-form writing, jokes, influential people stating support, art or literature or other aesthetic presentations, soft or hard coercion, etc. And all of these might work together!
More options
Context Copy link
I have background in formal competitive debate (also known, confusingly, as forensics) so my expectations of what a 'debate' should look like are probably categorically higher than most people.
Which is to say, I expect the participants to have agreed upon a 'question' that is actually going to be discussed, and spend a decent portion of the debate hashing the actual meaning of that question out for a bit, THEN going into the actual informational/argument about that question, so we don't end up with two people effectively talking past one another for an hour or descending ever deeper into minutiae whilst evading the larger question that is the actual purpose of the debate.
Likewise, the ability to cite to reliable(ish) sources during the course of the debate should be expected.
And the moderator should be holding people to, e.g. time limits and a certain level of decorum.
So if I were watching that kind of debate, I think I might be persuaded one way or another if I were in the audience.
But 'persuasion' as a broad category wherein someone who was previously undecided on a matter and then comes down on one side or the other, or is convinced to switch their position, goes far beyond the mere content of the debate and includes the social status of the speakers, their charisma/likeability, and indeed even the reaction of other audience members.
So I'm willing to guess there's some number, probably around that 20% mark, of people who might actually watch a debate and have whatever their prior beliefs were changed in some way in favor of one or the other participant.
It just likely won't be due to one side or the other having a stronger argument.
More options
Context Copy link
The best natural experiment we've gotten recently was the PA statewide elections back in November. In the summer polling, Shapiro and Fetterman both had double digit leads. Shapiro and Mastriano had no debate, Oz and Fetterman had one.
On here and elsewhere I was a constant anti-Oz bigot, I campaigned and voted against him twice. I can admit that was the biggest debate blowout anyone has ever seen in real life. It was like something out of Veep. Fetterman looked totally incapable of achieving anything, or even understanding anything.
Immediately after the debate polls narrowed.
Ultimately Fetterman won a narrow but clear victory, while Shapiro delivered the kind of posterizing dunk that has state republicans terrified for the future. So take into account the differences between the races, that's the max impact a debate can have on a race. Most debates will have less impact because both sides will at least seem, you know, coherent and intelligent. Compare the results for Oz to the results for Shapiro, who has no debate, and to other similarly situated Senate candidates and you have your number.
More options
Context Copy link
85% of all people will believe made up statistics.
As for your original question, it really depends on what is being debated, the seriousness of the topic to the listeners and the strength of the arguments presented.
Can you elaborate? I think that when Trump was asked in a debate about his comments on racial profiling, there were many progressives for whom the topic was very important because they believed it was a racist policy but never bothered doing any research of their own beyond what was being said in the debate. Should we assume these people don't care or that they were never going to change their minds in the first place despite the importance of the topic?
The odds of the progressive types changing their mind on such an issue over a single debate is very low indeed, as it's one of their sacred cows.
Someones willingness to research a topic has no bearing on the seriousness with which that person looks at the topic.
Wait, how can that be possible? Presumably, you're not going to research a topic you don't think is important, and I find that most people do not treat important things as non-serious.
Of course you will, I'm a historical wargamer and frequently research topics of no consequence other than to sate my curiosity and interest in the given topic. There are plenty of people who will delve to incredible depths on topics for no reason other than the desire to know more.
A far greater predictor for if you will research something is interest in the subject, how important you judge something to be can play a role in that, but it doesn't seem to be a major one, given how absurdly heated people can get on topics that they actually have almost no knowledge of.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link