Public debate is a widely used format for exploring contested issues. It has become a key aspect of civic engagement and political culture in many countries, shaping policy decisions during times of significant social change and fostering deliberative citizenship.
In debates, participants present arguments in a structured manner to a judge who decides the winner of the round. The judge’s preferences, listed in a ‘judge paradigm’, determine the style of the competition: some judges like fast-paced technical contests, others prefer more conversational & traditional rounds. Each debater must adapt to the preference of their judge – this is why it is important for organisers and debaters alike to have a clear understanding of the debate format and its guidelines.
Debates feature a range of different participants, including citizens and public officials. They are a key element of the public sphere in that they allow citizens to express their views in a visible and accessible format. Debates also help construct the borders of the public sphere as they often feature different publicly accessible viewpoints.
From a normative perspective, debates are distinguished by their claim to be representative. This is achieved by requiring that participants give reasons for their claims, such as a truthful account of how things really are (‘acceptability’) and relevance to the issue being debated (‘relevance’). Debates also require that participants listen to and accommodate the argumentation of other participants, a practice called ‘listening rhetoric’ or ‘principle of accommodation’ (cf. Booth 2004 on listening, and Gutmann & Thompson 1996 on the principle of accommodation).
About the Author
