Fallacy policing is absolutely conducive to information exchange. Just because the only way we're currently able to get candidates to be in the same room together is for them to spout bullshit and avoid questions doesn't mean that they're actually exchanging information. If a candidate uses a fallacy the other party does not automatically win, they would simply be called out, forced to make a correction, or to rescind their point, by the moderator..
Reminds me of this
https://youtu.be/g__IYTWJ7WA
That's a very narrow way of looking at things though, isn't it? Neoliberalism as an economic ideology spreads into every aspect of how we live our lives. You can't really make a coherent argument that our economic outlook doesn't affect how we debate, how we approach race, healthcare, the environment etc etc etc.
In the context of debate, it's the idea that there's marketplace of ideas, and through debating we can discern who's worthy of the currency of validity. The problem is that you can't marketise everything, no matter how much neoliberalism would like to, and as a result the Ben Shapiro style mostly serves to give attention to bad ideology. I didn't just read into this myself by the way, guys like Shapiro and a lot of conservative thought leaders self describe themselves of being pro market place of ideas saying that we should treat debate like a neoliberal marketplace.
I tried
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/217575/bc1f18b8-685d-44ef-83e5-3dc06d244139/benshapadapa.wav
This reminds me of when Reagan deflected a question about his age by saying "I will not take advantage of my opponent's youth and inexperience", or something like that. It completely shut down the argument even though the question had not been answered.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
