Welcome Back Kotter & The Deterioration of Debate

.
In recent years, I've noticed a common thread regarding debate/argument. It surfaces in the online community, in the courts, in law schools, in county commission meetings, in HOA meetings, in the Congressional & Senatorial arena, and on and on. It appears to me that, as a society, we are losing or have already lost our ability to objectively debate, to debate on the real issues, to state truthful facts and respond with logical argument and otherwise discuss all relevant truthful facts related to any given issue. We have adopted a 'win at all cost' & 'blind loyalty to your side' mentality that is only growing.

What do I mean by this? I'll site to a few examples in a bit. But, in a nutshell, what I'm pointing out here is that people don't know how to debate, period. Even folks in the debate profession (lawyers, politicians, etc.) are failing in training the next generation of debators to isolate the best arguments and counter-arguments relevant to an issue, to present your best arguments and counter-arguments in coherent language with citations to actual facts, and to use common sense and logic in order to connect the arguments.

We've turned into an old episode that I recall from Welcome Back Kotter. It took me a while to find this, but I knew someone had to have posted it. They did. This is a classic Kotter Episode.


Like Kotter says about the "intricate plan to psych out the opposition," "It's not cool . . . it was a terrible plan." The tactic of 'win at all cost' and 'blind loyalty to your side', even in the absence of reason, has really degenerated the current debate norm. There is no way that a Lincoln-Douglas debate will EVER happen again. This kind of a debate would end in insult, abandon truth, sidline logic and embrace the unreasonable.

It seems to me that this is how debators have begun its change. Gone are the days of honest facts and back-and-forth argument on the issues, supported by reason and logic. Now, when you don't have the argument, you yell. When you don't have the facts, you devise an "intricate plan to psych out the opposition." Many people think this is all part of zealous representation or commitment to a cause. It is not. What it is - weak, spineless & lazy.

Sure, there are many out there that are still embracing good old logic, reason and facts to argue their position. However, the 'twist' that I've seen in recent years, amongst even that group, is that their biased beliefs dictate the arguments and the zealous nature of the dedication ofeten creates an abandonment of reason. In other words, it all depends on your side. You take whatever avenue necessary that will improve your position, promote your side, even if by compromising the truth and leaving logic in the dust. When the bias enters the argument, reason exits the argument.

You would think that at last resort, a debator would 'get personal' when all is lost. No. Now, what often happens is a pattern of attacks is the 'initial argument', is the 'initial move'. None of these 'personal attacks' address the issues. Instead of getting into the facts and logic of the debate, debators, more often than not, get personal and attack irrelevant issues, in an effort to discredit the overall arguments. For example, I've seen it posted online and actually stated in Court, that if you can't even spell correctly, I don't have to respond (implying that because the opponent has poor spelling, their arguments are stupid. That is an abondonment of logic.).

The typical 'first move' personal attacks to which I am referring are: (1) an attack on grammar, spelling and use of language; (2) an attack on the person's general lack of knowledge on the specific topic, without demonstrating any clear errors in fact or citing how the person lacks knowledge; (3) a personal attack on the person's arguments as being part of an 'extremist' view (no matter the side of the argument) then refusing to respond claiming that there is no need to address the argument because the person profering such is an obvious zealot, idiot or extemist who has abandoned reason; and (4) a personal attack on your origination, your personal life, your group of friends that are unrelated to the arguing issue and personal attacks on religion or economic status. (Why? We have successfully abolished gender & race-based attacks in this regard. However, there are still a few groups that are still OK to mock. Religion & economic status are the main two.)

In short, we are progressing toward the complete death of true debate. Practicing attorneys, politicians, community leaders have all embraced this popular effort at varying levels. The young professionals are learning this relatively new approach and believe that it is the standard.

Proof of this change can be seen in Nevada. It used to be that debate occurred on the issues, without personal attacks or misrepresentations of fact. Thus, it was unnecessary to adobt the Federal Rules regarding the 21-day Safe Harbor. However, in my opinion, the Federal Rule was adopted recently in Nevada due, directly, to this change in debate tactics. The 21-day Safe Harbor Rule provides that an attorney may 'retract' what was stated in a pleading or in court upon the allegation of the falsity of such by the opposing side. Counsel has 21 days to retract. If the attorney does not retract, they can be sanctioned, once proven false. The message this rule sends: you guys lie so much, now, we have to allow you a 3-week 'take it back' period or you get flogged penalty. That alone if a sad commentary.

I don't know if Welcome Back Kotter started this or if they were simply citing the ridiculous. Either way, unfortunately this is now the norm. It is no longer a funny sitcom, it is reality. It will result in the death of debate.

In case you don't have video or sound capabilities, the relevant transcript is as follows:

Kotter: Is this what you call a dignified manner (referring to their wild clothing, after Kotter requested they dress in a “dignified manner”).

Washington: Hey man, don’t sweat it man, this is part of our intricate plan to psych out the opposition.

Kotter: This is a debate, you are supposed to psch ‘em out with words, not clothes.
. . .
Kotter: And you, you look like you come with a $95 funeral

Washington: This coat, this coat was worn at the famous Lincoln-Douglas debate.

Kotter: This coat, was worn at the famous Lincoln-Douglas debate.

Washington: I wore this coat when my father, Lincoln, was beatin’ the daylights out of my brother, Douglas.
. . .
Kotter: Epsten, close your mouth, sit on your sword.
. . .
Woodman: Good Morning SweatHogs and welcome to your Waterloo.

Kotter: Thanks for not taking sides, Mr. Woodman.

Wells: What do you got here guys, a costume party? Tacky Tacky Tacky.

Epstein: Is that what you think, Mr. Wells?

Vinnie: They’re the costumes from your last play.
. . .
Woodman: The subject agreed upon is resolved: Humans are naturally aggressive. Speaking for the ‘negative’, Mr. Wells’ team, speaking for the ‘affirmative’, Mr. Kotter's Bunch.
. . .
Woodman: Will you check your reference material please?

Judy: New York Times article, 1972, “Is there a human instinct for peace?”

Brown Sweater: Check
. . . (Good Team cites several valid sources)


Kotter: You call that research, we’re gonna show you what research is.

Vinnie: What?

Kotter: The research that you’ve prepared for this debate.

Vinnie: Research material, the last words of Jack the Ripper, I never met a person I didn't wanna kill.

Epstein: Check

Vinnie: Atilla the Huns words to his troops. Trample everyone in sight.

Washington: Check

Vinnie: My father to my mother. Now you hit him Margie, my arm is tired.
. . .
Washington: I’ve never talked in public before, only in church.

Kotter: Well do what you have to do.

Washington: Bothers and Sisters, we are gathered here today . . .(continues yelling, screaming and pounding the pulpit with his silly & brief argument proving that when you don't have a good argument "Yell")
. . .
Judy: Mr. Woodman. Mr. Woodman. Washington isn’t following the rules. He isn’t following the rules.

Wells: Judy, let us begin our sides’ extraordinarily dramatic rebuttal, shall we? Todd, if you please, thank you.
. . .
Todd: Friends & esteemed adversaries…

Arnold: Times up.

Todd: Friends & INCOMPETENTS . . .(Todd starts his argument, while being called names by the SweatHogs) . . . Our opponents have yet to prove that they are human.

Vinnie: Hey, off my case, potato-face.

Kotter: Time Out, Just what do you all think you’re doin’?

Vinnie: Hey, it’s cool, trust us you’ll see.

Kotter: No, its not cool.

Todd: I don’t mind their interruptions, Mr. Kotter, they’re just proving what they are.

Epstein: Oh yea, you know what you are, Todd? You are ‘white bread’.

Todd: For example, if every time you take a SweatHog and you punch him in the face, you repeatedly tell him to ‘SHUT UP’.

Vinnie: How can we shut up, you said we weren’t human.

Epstein: Yea, we’re animals.

Todd: SHUT UP! I’ll kill him, I’ll kill him!

Wells: Todd, you’re blowing it!

Washington: He ain’t blowin’ it man, he blew it!

Kotter: That’s quite a boy you got there Alex.

Woodman: This debate is ‘called’ on account of dumbness.

Wells: Yea, that’s right, foul Todd, the young man was obviously 'provoked'.

Kotter: Oh well, I think he did some provoking himself and I think we proved our point, even if the finest student is capable of aggression, but notice some people were able to control it.

Wells: Mr. Kotter, I have just one thing to say to you.

Kotter: Go ahead

Wells: In your sock with a pound of locks.

Washington: Our plan worked.

Kotter: It was a terrible plan…
.