Hmmm. I don’t have anything well thought out, but my rough and off-the-top-of-my-head impressions are this:
it is much more impressive to speak extemporaneously about a complex subject than to do a prepared speech
an aspect of charisma and of performance in debates that seems much more impressive than in giving a talk
the fact that there are “sides” in a debate increases the level of excitement/tension
the fact that it isn’t fully rehearsed means that we might see new things. (simple example, if I am a huge fan of John Doe, going to a talk of his might be exciting but I am probably familiar with everything he is going to say. In a debate, there is the possibility of him sharing things that he hasn’t shared before)
None of these are particularly high-confidence, and I want to emphasize that these are vague impressions. I’ll also add that how the debate is structured/designed has a huge affect, and could minimize or amplify various characteristics. Merely saying “a debate” really leaves a lot of room open for interpretation regarding what it will actually be. (4-10 people around a conference table in a small room? 2-4 people on stage with podiums? Time limits? Interruptions? Prepared notes? Audience votes?)
otoh I’ve found watching “famous” people debate helpful for taking them off the pedestal. It’s demystifying to watch them argue things and think about things in public rather than just reading their more polished thoughts. The former almost always makes impressive-looking people seem less impressive.
Could you share how the debate format may be more likely to play into celebrity/elitist culture in EA than a standard conference talk format?
Hmmm. I don’t have anything well thought out, but my rough and off-the-top-of-my-head impressions are this:
it is much more impressive to speak extemporaneously about a complex subject than to do a prepared speech
an aspect of charisma and of performance in debates that seems much more impressive than in giving a talk
the fact that there are “sides” in a debate increases the level of excitement/tension
the fact that it isn’t fully rehearsed means that we might see new things. (simple example, if I am a huge fan of John Doe, going to a talk of his might be exciting but I am probably familiar with everything he is going to say. In a debate, there is the possibility of him sharing things that he hasn’t shared before)
None of these are particularly high-confidence, and I want to emphasize that these are vague impressions. I’ll also add that how the debate is structured/designed has a huge affect, and could minimize or amplify various characteristics. Merely saying “a debate” really leaves a lot of room open for interpretation regarding what it will actually be. (4-10 people around a conference table in a small room? 2-4 people on stage with podiums? Time limits? Interruptions? Prepared notes? Audience votes?)
otoh I’ve found watching “famous” people debate helpful for taking them off the pedestal. It’s demystifying to watch them argue things and think about things in public rather than just reading their more polished thoughts. The former almost always makes impressive-looking people seem less impressive.