When sunlight is a poor disinfectant
Why sometimes the best move is to pass on a debate even if crushing it is certain.
In 2007, comedian and MMA commentator Joe Rogan debated astronomer, skeptic, and popular science blogger Phil Plait on Penn Jillette's radio show on whether the moon landing was real. In Jillette's retelling of the story, a visibly frustrated Plait turned to him during a commercial break and cried out, 'I'm going to lose this debate, and I KNOW I'm right!'. Unfortunately, debates are not always won by those who are right.
However, I'd like to make a more far-reaching point - even if you know for a fact that you'd decisively win a debate, that doesn't mean you should necessarily go through with it. Specifically, in situations where:
• The stakes of convincing the audience are high,
• Your opponent holds beliefs that are considerably unpopular,
• They are competent enough in the format that you know they won't completely shit themselves in the eyes of the average person (if someone willingly engages in a debate, it is highly unlikely they will embarass themselves this bad).
The reason is, the goal of the debate, in many circumstances, should not just be to win more of the undecided audience than your opponent does. The goal often should be to win over a bigger percentage of the undecided audience than the percentage of people who already hold your view and not allow the other side to do the same. In simple terms, to make the world proportionally more pro your team than it was before. If the opposing perspective is niche, this can be incredibly difficult to achieve.
For example, say you're debating a Nazi sympathizer on whether Jews are a net good for society. If the negative sentiment about Jews is shared by 5% of people in society, the threshold for success for the Nazi debater is significantly smaller than it is for you. All he needs to do is convince more than 5% of the undecided people in the audience to make the world a bit more antisemitic than before. (I'm deliberately leaving out those with established views, as they are incomparably more difficult to persuade than the undecided ones.)
This is one of the reasons why pernicious, fringe views are so dangerous when they are given a large platform - there is a clear asymmetry in rewards. The less popular they are, the more they stand to win from large platforms, even if the person presenting them does a mediocre job.
It is a point that we intuitively understand, but not everyone admits to. If sunlight was indeed the best disinfectant, we would all be screaming at the top of their lungs to get the people we despise the most to prime-time TV so a debate could dispel their views away from society. However, that is not a sentiment you hear even from the most pro-platforming of crowds. Sometimes, there is no such thing as bad publicity.