In a debate both form and substance have value. One thing that we want to ensure is that the topic is not the foundation for judgment. Debates are not about the topic per se but instead its about how the individual presents their arguments related to the topic.
Originally Posted by yguy
In the mod forums where we're discussing this I brought up the example of whether the earth circles the sun or if the sun circles the earth. If the proponent of the earth revolving around the sun only offers opinion but the proponent of the sun revolving around the sun provides not only opinions but also supportive evidence that the sun rises in the East, travels across the sky and sets in the West then the proponent of the sun revolving around the earth would win the debate.
On the flip side a well established logical argument can overcome apparent evidence to the contrary. In the end it is all about how the arguments are presented and not whether one side is right or wrong related to the topic of the debate. Who provided the most compelling argument?
Historically the Dixiecrats were little more than a surrogate for the KKK and today, based upon the political rhetoric of Donald Trump, I have to ask if the current Republican Party is in danger of also becoming the political party of White Supremacist/White Nationalist hatred replacing the old Dixiecrats.