Cage Match Debates

The time has come for a new standard in debating excellence. In fact, we are long overdue. In today's intellectual climate, it is exceedingly rare to see an actual debate be resolved. Indeed, throughout all of history there are very few examples where an intellectual position is proved to be true or false. We can point to Galileo refuting geocentrism and proving heliocentrism; the phlogiston theory being debunked; or slavery being proven to be immoral. What we need today is a way to focus our debates on seeking out truths and rejecting falsehoods; a way to cut out the fluff of verbal disputes, immature bickering and fallacious reasoning. In essence, a way to make debates much more efficient in producing truths, and not just a "winner". I believe I have come up with the solution: Cage Match Debates (CMD).

The primary goal of CMD is to find the truth – those propositions that are in accord with reality. Almost all debates fail miserably in this task. There are two reasons for this failure:

The first is comprehension between debaters. Achieving a perfect understanding between debaters is notoriously difficult to achieve. Since most people fail to define their terms and sometimes present their arguments in rant-form, they cannot understand what is being debated. This leads to straw man arguments and debating at cross purposes and creates a debate with no chance of resolving anything.

The other reason for shoddy debates is a failure to adhere to logic. Fallacious reasoning leads to false conclusions. But most debates don't take the time to closely analyze each argument for validity and soundness. As a result, "winners" are chosen through audience voting or by judges; but these are subjective evaluations. Thus, these inferior debates have no objective way to determine truth or falsehood.

CMD solves these problems by following three simple rules:

1. Define all terms
2. Answer all questions
3. Standardized arguments (prose optional)

This last rule means numbering the premises and conclusions of an argument, writing them out in clear, simple language, and putting them in a logical order – premises before conclusion. This rule is easy to follow because all arguments consist of premises and conclusions; all you have to do is identify them. And since prose is optional, the Cage Match format is the same as normal debating, but with some additional rules.

By following these rules, the problems of comprehension and logic can be solved. Defining the terms and writing out arguments in standard form means debates will be very clear and concise, and thus easy to understand. If any miscomprehension persists, being forced to answer all questions will help enormously. Just imagine how many disputes exist because of a lack of understanding or miscommunication. CMD can resolve these disputes by cutting out the name calling, unfocused arguments, and arguing at cross purposes that cause miscomprehension and errors in logic.

In critical thinking textbooks, we are told that standardizing arguments is a useful exercise because it makes arguments easier to understand and analyze. So why not do this in the first place? Numbering arguments does help in determining the truth value and validity. Thus, fallacies can be rooted out and sound arguments taken to the bank. With Cage Match rules, the true position can be determined objectively, through logical analysis, rather than appealing to the masses.

The ideal debate would be one where the debaters work together (rather than be opponents), focus on a narrow subject, and follow the rules strictly. Having some prerequisite readings is also helpful. Ultimately, the quality of a debate rests on the people debating. And the best debaters are those who follow the Cage Master mindset: "I don't care what intellectual position I hold, so long as that position is true."