If a cool person took on a logical person in a public debate who would the audience think won?
It depends on how the event went.
I was in Middle School and got into a debate with this one guy for a class thing. I was in front of the class, and this guy was liked and I wasn’t. I kicked his ass logically (I can’t exactly remember, but I think he said something along the lines of "My guy is awesome to infinity;), but he supposedly won because he was more liked, or cooler.
I guess it depends entirely on the people viewing the event. How cool the people are or aren’t biases their opinions, but in the end there’s really only one unbiased logical winner, and that’s usually not the cool guy.
I agree.
Coolness is relative to what the audience thinks is cool. If the audience thinks it’s cool to be logical then this proposition doesn’t make sense.
I said usually.
And besides, the audience rarely thinks the most logical one is the cool one.
Yeah, that’s why I thought the question was worth asking. It’s based on the assumption that the audience likes the cool person, but doesn’t like the logical person, or likes less.
The cool guy would indeed win because when it really comes down to it its not about “logic”. Logic, real logic, invariably implies that there is perspectivism, and thus logic becomes a personal thing moreover then a purely rational, external problem. Coolness in short equals logic.
Can you explain this a little more. I’m not farmiliar with perspectivism and I can’t figure how coolness equate to logic.
Perhaps, winning isn’t about logic?
The Merchants of Cool : video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 4985765950
I recently read that most successful public speakers tend to speak slowly, and stick to a vocabulary of no more than two thousand words.
Seems to work for politicians.
I find it funny (haha) how much humor can trump anything in a public argument. You could have the most sound argument but if the other person starts making that fart noise with their armpit and the crowd likes it… you’re sort of stuck in quite an odd spot.
It is the job of philosophers to make logic cool. Most of them fail.
What makes you say that?
By the way, Rolling Stone had a great article on E. Howard Hunt. It was an interview with his son mixed with stuff about the man.
It’s kind of sad too.
Get used to it 
Most people are dumb. You can use it to your advantage though. If you’re the philosopher and you’re using the tactics you know that work – like humor – you can get your message across. Colbert is a semi-alright example.
I’d rather not get used to it and I would like to think that if I am in the position to dismiss person on humor based tactics that I would open the door back up to them on the logical front.
I think a lot would depend on whether the debate was on radio or television. And if on television; whether they were seated or standing.
" Video killed the radio-star "- and all that kind of stuff.
I’m agreeing with Siatd – combine them – humor and logic. It’s our job to point out to people that everyone practices philosophy, they’re just not aware of it.
It’s critical, as I’m finding out as of late, that your approach to ‘them’ is one that they can relate to. Vocabularies vary, people just think in such different ways. When you’re in a group setting common theme emerge like humor, empathy towards suffering, stuff like that – there are psychological constants that are clay for the molding.
Mass argumentative theory is a subject I think about quite a bit. For example I… am somewhat conspiratol and for a while I played the numbers (or so I thought) – bombardment of posts with links to the information. Just… get it all out there i thought. If no one is reading them… then it doesn’t matter does it? Logic is great; it’s the backbone! even if it is a convenient ghost, it’s like friend of yours that’s sort of rough around the edges. He tells you it straight, and that’s why you like him – he’s a truthful guy but, you know, it’s intense and not everyone wants to be in his presence all the time.
Remember ‘the other guy’ in the public debate can be classified as ‘dumb’ or whatever, but he could just as easily point out that he’s winning and you’re not. It’s so much more complex than these binary conceptions. Take what you can from him – make the communication meaningful. If he’s pointing out the power of humor, than take that and use it.
I feel like that’s what it’s all about really.
Because, as detrop is so fond of pointing out, philosophy in the academic sense is largely useless work (or means of avoiding useful work, in his argument) that contributes nothing to practical development (he says progress, I don’t believe progress is a useful word) in society at large. If philosophers can find no popular or political application then what the hell is the point in having them? I’m not talking about sell-out lecture tours, I mean actually making a difference to people’s lives. I think that it is fair to say that most philosophers have failed to make logic cool. Most political philosophers that I’ve read are either far too abstract and idealistic or simply outdated.
Allegedly, I’m distantly related to the man. He was involved in the JFK shooting, according to the article in my sig. 
gay science
Coolness in linguistics is largely a result of clever uses of rhetoric, and especially hedges.
answers.com/topic/hedge-linguistics
By wraping a base premise of an argument up in garnishings, one can persuade a listener in a desired direction. Gamer was good at this. He might right a paragraph trying to make a single philosophical point or assertion, but the premise was buried underneath a mass of prose. By the time you were done reading it, you decided to agree with him because, well, fuck it…he said it well. You’re convinced since it was cool.
Taking seriously. – In the great majority, the intellect is a clumsy, gloomy, creaking machine that is difficult to start. They call it “taking the matter seriously,” when they work with this machine and want to think well: how onerous they must find thinking well! The lovely beast, man, seems to lose it’s good spirits every time it thinks well: it becomes “serious.” And “where laughter and gaiety are found, the quality of thought is poor” --that is the prejudice of this serious beast against all “gay science.”
–Nietzsche