Knowledge vs. Experience

There are "professional debaters" in the world who argue political topics. And they're really good at what they do. In America, you have Charlie Kirk on one political side, and Dean Withers on the other. I've been learning about them recently.

To the average viewer of their debates, they can seem pretty impressive. They score invisible "debate points" based on how frequently and to the degree with which they're able to trip up their opponent. If you can make the other person look stupid by contradict themselves or getting emotional, then you win.

People like these two guys know their stuff. They study the details of bills and governmental budgets. They're familiar with healthcare, drugs (medicinal and recreational), immigration, human rights, and above all—The Constitution of the United States.

But while knowledge is important for these debaters, as they'd have nothing to talk about without it, the real "secret sauce" is not their knowledge, but their skill of debating. And it is a skill. It's their delivery, it's their prepared responses or rebuttals to every likely counterargument that the opposition might throw at them.

These guys talk fast and put words into the mouths of their opponents. They use various rhetorical techniques to gain the upper hand, like chess masters working to control the middle of the board. If you could pause the onslaught of words for a moment to fact check some of their arguments, you'd find that they don't always (or even often, in some cases) make any sense at all. But it sounds convincing...in a Jesse Eisenberg character kind of way.

It's interesting. And for some, the showmanship is all there is. "Style over substance", we'd say. But the best ones do have substance as well.

I wonder how they train for their events. As professional athletes must prepare for their sporting events by watching video tapes of themselves and their upcoming opponents, I'm sure debaters must do the same. They must analyze their past performances and look for areas of improvement where alternative analogies might have landed their points better. They must practice their lines, focusing on emphasis of certain buzzwords. They have a lineup of canned responses prepared as their arsenal of weapons to be used in times of need; the most common of which seemingly being, "Can you let me finish?"

It's an interesting spectacle, like a wrestling match. And while I'm fairly physically fit (the workers at the gym know me by name), and while I have an above average knowledge of American politics, I don't know anything about wrestling or debating. I'm sure I'd be awful at both.

Just like with many sports, including soccer and basketball, there's more to being great than just the information on how to score a point. There's a certain flair, swagger, or style that can only be attained from the extensive practice of that thing.

In these cases, knowledge isn't everything...but it isn't nothing either. The two complement each other well and culminate into something that is impressive.

À méditer…