What’s spiral debate? Let me get the definition straight.
Since it’s hard to define the newly emerging concept of spiral debate, let me define what it is NOT.
It’s not the straight debate that is based on man-made straight logic that goes linear—past, present and future--.
We have an issue (debatable). To debate, we have to establish the need for change. To do so, the problem area must be identified. Here goes the straight logic or why-because logic.
Pick an issue. (Why is it an issue?) The issue comes from a serious problem. But why is it serious? Where does the problem come from? (Why is it inherent in the issue?)
Where’s a link between cause and effect? If you set the link established, the rest is easy. Kill the cause and the effect (problem) will go away. Right? Wrong, the problem will come back. Why? Prove me wrong. That’s straight.
Spiral debater wonders if the basis assumption, either-or solution, is valid.
Is affirmative right, because negative is wrong? If the golden balance is the way to do, both can’t be right or wrong. Instead of separating right from wrong, an attempt must be made after fission (debate as a tactic) so that both right and wrong must be fused as a strategy into a golden balance, yin and yang.
Fission is just a means of reaching fused (enlightened) consensus, the beauty of the golden mean (中庸).
Spiral logic says neither party is absolutely right and wrong. It is just both are equal but separate.
Straight logic on the “fission” debate is an effective tactic to strategically reach, fused (educated) consensus or mutually acceptable balance. Mutual give is what spiral debate is after.