Take the existence of God. At the first level there is a binary between theists and non-theists. But among theists there is a binary between those who think God can be shown to exist through pure reason alone and those who think that to prove God you need to use empirical evidence. Among those who think that God’s existence can be shown by pure reason alone, there is a binary between those who think ontological arguments work and those who don’t. Among those who think an ontological argument works, there is a binary between those who think Anselm’s ontological argument works and those who don’t. And so on to infinity.

There could be, and indeed have been for centuries, “formalized binary debates” about each of these issues, even though no single debate includes all of the possible positions one could take in theology. Likewise, there could be, and indeed have been for decades, “formalized binary debates” about porn, rape, differences between men and women, or any other topic of interest to you, even though no single debate includes all of the possible positions one could take on the topic as a whole.

(As an aside, keep in mind that the question of whether there are “binary identities”–presumably you mean of gender–is separate from the question of whether there are only two possible opinions one could hold about some issue. In other words, pick your battles.)

So “formalized binary debates” are useful ways to talk about disputed issues. In my previous post I gave some reasons for why they are especially effective, and for why they are at any rate more effective at promoting “open intellectual discourse” than the upcoming event featuring the tastefully-named pornographer. I didn’t say that they were always and everywhere the best “format of discourse”; indeed I suggested merely that an organization like Lets hold a debate as at least one of their events, not that every event they hold must be a debate. Although in truth I think that would be better than the opposite situation that prevails at the moment.

You and I are having a discussion right now that is outside the constraints of a formalized binary debate, where we would be called upon to sympathize with one camp or the other. The category that you might call “feminists” includes very different and diverse views on pornography. Maybe I’m not a debater, because I believe in the diversity of opinions that can exist outside of the restraints of binary identities. But yes, I can’t argue that debate is not a recognized and institutionalized format of discourse. I just wouldn’t agree that it is always the *best* one. I assure you that my opinions and perspective are potentially very different than other writers here on this blog. And I’m sure you have opinions and perspectives to contribute on the topic as well, which you are certainly more than welcome to share with us.

2) No one’s claiming that Anscombe is the only contrasting opinion, or at least I didn’t: “Or, you could debate students who disagree with you and are not in Anscombe–of whom there are plenty, I assure you.” For example, I disagree with you and am not in Anscombe.

3) “parade”: I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

4) You will concede that formal debate is *a* legitimate form of discourse. The reason people engage in it is that it’s a structured way of articulating one’s views and explaining why a rational person should believe them. Two sides of the argument are represented, both get equal time to speak their minds, no one can talk over the other, and there are some basic standards e.g. no name-calling. Formal debates have been going on for a long, long time and it’s pretty much standard practice for people who want to intelligently argue about some disputed issue. With all these things to recommend it, I can’t imagine why you wouldn’t want to debate someone, maybe Anscombe, maybe not, as at least *one* method of “engaging in discourse”. If people don’t hassle Anscombe about not debating their opponents, it’s probably because they’re fully ready to have such a debate anywhere, anytime. Why aren’t you?

Tristan,

You seem to think that this blog presents a model of morality that is not to be found anywhere else, and I really haven’t heard the Republican/Democrat binary that you’re talking about (if you’ve noticed, we don’t really like binaries here), so I’m confused about your statements.

I don’t think that the only “contrasting” and “diverse” opinion is that of the Anscombe society. In fact, from feminist to feminist, among Democrats and among Republicans, you will find a range of opinions and positions on pornography. And that, I believe, is a dialogue that LeT’S is trying to engage.

I’m sure not everyone agrees with the Anscombe Society’s position, but I doubt that anyone parades their website declaring that they are not engaging in a useful dialogue, because they haven’t staged a “debate”. “Debate” was never mentioned in the post above…so I’m confused about why you want it in such a specific format, and why you think it’s the only legitimate form of discourse.

Diverse and contrasting opinions do not only constitute either/or. I know we learned about “opposites” in elementary school, but the range of opinions that can be represented by the academic world extend far beyond representations of white and black.

2) You assume that people in Anscombe are “already fundamentally convinced” and not genuinely open to debate (as I’m sure you are). This is an uncharitable and unproven claim, but let’s assume it’s true. Here are two possibilities: you could debate Anscombe people, not in the hope of convincing them, but in the hope of convincing the people in the audience. Or, you could debate students who disagree with you and are not in Anscombe–of whom there are plenty, I assure you. Unless you think that everyone who disagrees with you is both wrong and unwilling to change his mind?

3) Having people talk past each other in opinion columns is not having a debate, even if it’s done more competently than it was. Having a dinner discussion is not having a debate. To my knowledge there has been no “literal” formal 1 on 1 or 2 on 2 public debate on this or indeed on pretty much any other issue you’d like to name. At best there was the “Drunk Sex or Date Rape” thing last spring, which drew more people than your thing probably will, even with your free porn.

Look at the intensity in the Prince comments on those articles. You can see that a serious and probably hostile debate on such topics would be heavily attended and well worth doing.

2) On the likely absence of “ideological opposites” at your event, I don’t think LeTS is really trying to win over anyone in Anscombe. I think they’re trying to start a discussion with people who are genuinely open to hearing more about sex and sex positivity. The target audience isn’t someone who is already fundamentally convinced that the former is sinful and the second irrelevant.

3) There has been a TON of “public debate” on campus about sex and gender issues this year that has taken the form of literal debate and in opinion columns in the Daily Princetonian, our school newspaper.

And given the fact that your ideological opposites really cannot attend the latter lecture, it will not surprise anyone when there is no “open academic discussion”. It’s like having a lecture where the speaker will say that vegetarianism is immoral, and requiring everyone who attends to eat a steak. Clearly in that case you know beforehand that one side of the argument is not going to represented.

I’ll leave the honesty of this approach for others to decide. But if you really want to have an “open academic discussion” about anything, you should simply have a public debate with people (e.g. Anscombe) who you disagree with. I’m sure they would be happy to join you, so why not?