This question was put directly to the audience of the Munk Debates on Religion both before and after they listened to a debate on the issue between former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, arguing in favour of the resolution AND bestselling author, journalist and literary critic Christopher Hitchens, arguing against the resolution.
Prior to the debate, 25% of the 2,600 audience members agreed with the resolution, while 55% disagreed and 20% were undecided. Immediately following the debate, agreement with the resolution had risen to 32% while disagreement with the resolution had risen to 68%.
About This Study
This poll was conducted for the Munk Debates (www.munkdebates.com) by Innovative Research Group, Inc. (www.innovativeresearch.ca), a national public opinion research firm on Friday, November 26th, 2010.
Prior to the start of the debate, members of the audience at the Munk Debates on Religion were asked to fill out a ballot where they indicated whether they agreed or disagreed with the resolution or were undecided. Ballots were collected and the results recorded using Scantron readers.
After the debate concluded, the audience was again asked to fill out a ballot where they indicated whether they still agreed or disagreed with the resolution. In the post debate ballot, the undecided option was not provided. Again, the ballots were collected and results recorded using Scantron readers. See detailed findings below for the ballot question wording and results.
The results of this poll are based on ballots collected among spectators at the Munk Debates on Religion.
DETAILED FINDINGS
Pre-Debate Ballot
QUESTION #1
Be it resolved, religion is a force for good in the world.
AGREE - 25%
DISAGREE - 55%
UNDECIDED – 20%
QUESTION #2
Depending on what you hear during the debate are you open to changing your vote?
YES - 76%
NO - 24%
Post-Debate Ballot
QUESTION #1
Be it resolved, religion is a force for good in the world.
AGREE - 32%
DISAGREE - 68%
52 comments:
I would've thought the "detailed findings" would be accompanied with a bit more analysis.
For example, it's not entirely clear whether anyone actually changed their mind.
It's also not immediately apparent who actually won the debate as Hitchens started with the majority vote. Hitchens increased his support by 23.6% whereas Blair increased his support by 28% as a proportion of the original ballot votes.
"QUESTION #1
Be it resolved, religion is a force for good in the world.
AGREE - 32%
DISAGREE - 68%"
The answer is "DISAGREE" won the debate.
If there was any planting in the audience it was to bolster Tony Blare [sic] who was useless IMHO!
It's really not as clear cut as that because it does look like Hitchens persuaded more of the undecided voters but as a proportion of his original support he gained fewer than expected.
By what measure are you advocating your position?
By the way, I agree that the only thing Tony did in that debate was concede points in my opinion.
All I'm trying to establish is some statistical justification for the outcome of the votes which your analysis as well as the initial are severely lacking.
That's actually not very good. I figured it would be far more than 68%.
How can 32% agree with Blair's weak drivel? Sure, it's another small victory , one of many now, but it's still shocking how many people can be convinced by such intellectually dishonest and intellectually lazy drivel.
Blair was shifting his position and misrepresenting atheism in history and showing an unsurprising ignorance of what's happening in the religious world.
All I'm trying to establish is some statistical justification for the outcome of the votes which your analysis as well as the initial are severely lacking.
I don't know what you mean but here's my "statistical justification" for saying Hitch won:
68>32
But if you want to know who won over those who changed their mind the anwser is:
32-25=7
68-55=13
13>7
It doesn't matter if some of those who were in favour of HItch first changed their minds beucase if that is the case then EVEN more of those undecideds or Blare[sic] supporters must have changed their minds too.
@HJ
Well that's trivially incorrect. There's a reason they take a vote before and after - to determine how persuasive the debaters have been. Your first justification has ignored the first vote which is the basis for the original opinions of the voters. And your second vote ignores the proportion of proponents and opponents in the room initially.
In the extreme case where, for example, all were against before (i.e. Hitch=100% and Tony=0%) and then afterwards Tony had 10% of the votes, sure Tony had less votes overall but he persuaded people from Hitch's side.
To measure percentage change gives you a better idea of how well each performed which is why I initially quoted a increase in Hitchen's side of 23.6% whereas Tony increased his side by 28% (calculation below):
(32-25)/25 = 28%
(68-55)/55 = 23.6%.
"But if you want to know who won over those who changed their mind the anwser is:
32-25=7
68-55=13"
This is not necessarily true, is it? This is only true if no one initially "decided" (albeit before or against) changed their mind. You have no evidence here that suggests that is the case.
This brings me to my second point on how you can get a better measure of the persuasiveness of the speakers because clearly more points should be allocated to a speaker who persuaded someone from the opposing side to their side as opposed to someone persuading someone who was undecided. This kind of information (if it was an anonymous vote) is unavailable and so, in my opinion, it's still unclear who the victor is judging from the statistics supplied.
Decent statisticians.
James, no way did anyone change form Hitchens to Blare[sic]. The ones Blare[sic] won were just those fence-zitters who had to choose one side or another.
I declare victory for Hitch on raw numbers alone because he ended up with a bigger share of the vote.
HJ, I applaud your enthusiasm for Hitchens but unfortunately you have no evidence to suggest that "no way did anyone change form [sic] Hithcnes to Blare[sic]".
I would have thought such a great supporter of Hitchens would understand how to embrace evidence despite its occasional bitter taste.
Well, I know what you mean though James. Thing is I really can't possibly see how Tony Blair won anything. Like I said, I think if it was rigged in any way at all it was to try and make the score less embarrassing for that feeble performance in which he had already surrendered the whole argument meekly protesting that maybe religion put right some of the problems it made in the first place. I honestly wished I'd skipped Blair's offerings except I wouldn't be able to say with the same conviction that he was crap!
I would have thought such a great supporter of Hitchens would understand how to embrace evidence despite its occasional bitter taste.
James, there's no way of knowing exactly if any of the Disagreed changed to Agreed or even vis-a-vis. One thing we do know is that the undecideds weren't allowed to stay undecided. So maybe some of those were leaning towards agreed to begin with and decided to give religion the benefit of the doubt. While others were won over by the barnstorming. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
I think though on the AVAILABLE evidence Hitchens mopped the floor with the ex-PM.
I agree that there's very little to be said for Blair in terms of his endorsement of religion. His arguments were poor and in no way demonstrated the proposition.
However, it is important to note that his position (paying special attention to the fact that he's a Catholic) is rather unique in its liberal approach to faith. To still have faith but for it not to affect political decisions sets a very good precedent.
Religion may not ever vanish from human minds but at least it can be politically, socially and perhaps even morally neutered. The sooner the faithful start admitting that their religion has nothing to say about morality (as they, on the whole, do about science, for example) the less harm it can serve on humanity.
"WE JUST DON'T KNOW."
Precisely my initial point HJ.
I would have thought the organisation would have taken more care over their analysis of the voting but as it stands, their results are still unclear.
I would have thought the organisation would have taken more care over their analysis of the voting but as it stands, their results are still unclear.
Yeah, but Hitchens won!
However, it is important to note that his position (paying special attention to the fact that he's a Catholic) is rather unique in its liberal approach to faith. To still have faith but for it not to affect political decisions sets a very good precedent.
Yeah, but he became a Catholic after he quit from being a PM. Really weird that someone BECOMES religious particularly choosing one that generally doesn't stay out of politics but pressures politicians on issues like abortion and condoms and gay marriage. Very, very strange since he also says he disagrees with the Catholic Church on these things. Very odd that. I think it's a bit like saying you will convert to Islam on the conditions that you don't pray to Mecca, eat halal food, believe the Koran or in any god fast in Ramadan (and then gently pressure others to not do that either!) I'm surprised anyone takes Tony Blair any more seriously thatn FMGM!
Bwahahahahaha!
But you have to understand that the message Blair is sending is not intended for people like me and you but for people of faith.
The Catholic church is in desperate need of reform, I'm sure you'll agree, and it seems very much that Blair is paving the way for that. I'd argue this was a good thing - however weak the position in contrast to Hitchens, Blair certainly trumps the Pope in my book.
"I'm surprised anyone takes Tony Blair any more seriously thatn FMGM!"
Indeed.
The problem with deciding a win based on percentages is as bad as the problem with deciding a win based on raw numbers without qualifying data.
If you assume Blair won because he had a 28% change vs. Hitchens 23.6% change, you are essentially assuming that all those percentages come from the same "pie", instead of being based on the sum of several individual opinions. This puts an unfair burden on the person who starts out with the largest percentage of audience agreement, as in this case Hitchens did with 55 to Blair's 25.
Basing a win on percentage would mean than Hitchens would need to convince 2.2 people for each person Blair convinced just to pull off a tie. That seems a little off to me, as the advantage of Hitchens' larger starting position is only one of perception. It's not like the crowd decided "Well, Hitch was pretty good, so you 12 go stand over there, but Blair seems like a nicer guy, so you seven stand over there". Everyone made up his or her own mind, and so should be considered individually.
As other posters have pointed out, there isn't enough data to convincingly do this, so I think it's probably best to skip the "who won?" question and just look at it as a bit of fluff entertainment where both men got paid to proselytize.
'Be it resolved' sounds stupid. It's promising too much. Why not keep the undecided option on the post-debate ballot? I don't care too much about this poll.
I'm surprised anyone takes Tony Blair any more seriously thatn [sic] FMGM!
I'm an atheist.
Big fucking deal. What do you want? A medal?
I'm a global thinker.
Nobody cares, jerkoff.
I'm a global thinker [sic, recte Hank Hill impersonator].
There you go, champ.
Death to Hitch Fascism!
Long live Truthers and antisemitism!
Decent redundancy!
Cooking for one!
A five dollar supermarket steak? I thought you were meant to be rich?
That's not a steak, idiot.
When calculating undecided votes, I don't think it's appropriate to assume that they would be more likely to disagree with the motion just because more of the people who were decided already have (55% vs 25%). We should take them at their word that they are undecided.
So I don't think Hitchens has the obligation to convince more people based on how many people already opposed the motion. The only appropriate measure would be compare the total amount of individuals each speaker was able to convince.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_steak
Idiot.
What the Cappleroast!
Indeed.
I enjoy fondling squirrels' naughty bits.
Prime chuck roast, got it!
I'm absolutely repulsive! Even the Lib Dems can't stand me!
Beef Chuck
arm roast = arm pot roast = arm chuck roast = chuck arm roast = round bone pot roast = round bone roast Notes: This is just a butcher's blade away from the shoulder roast, and the main difference between the two is that the arm roast has a round bone in it and is slightly more tender. You can use this for a pot roast, or cut it up for stew meat, but it's too tough to cook with dry heat. A steak cut from this roast is called an arm steak.
---
'Cause it's a roast, not a steak!
FGFM, what a weirdo you are!
@James: not exactly correct. There's no telling how many people switched their original side. The only definite value to look at is the original undecided % and final %. Hitch won over twice as many (13 vs 7) undecided as Blair.. that means Hitch's argument was more persuasive. Obviously since there was a greater % of people already on Hitch side would make that swing look comparatively smaller.
@James: and also.. how do you define what constitutes a win? We can only go by solid, recorded, observed evidence at hand. The only parameter that gives us that is the UNDECIDED %. We can only guess and argue over the AGREE / DISAGREE % change.. to no avail. I grant you maybe 1% shifted sides one way or another.. but we can't define the condition for a 'win' based on that 'supposed' assumption.
But since the UNDECIDED contingent of the attendees was required to choose either side, I take that as the only indicator (however poor it may be..) of the debate's outcome. Of course you could bring very valid points as to how the organizers managed the %...
It's a steak until you roast it, and then it's, well, still a steak, actually.
Bone appahteat, you ill-bred moron.
It's a steak until you roast it, and then it's, well, still a steak, actually.
You don't roast steaks. Steaks are typically broiled.
You're an incorrigble idiot.
You're an incorrigble [sic] idiot.
What the Capplesteak!
Oh look, the creep's finally got a date.
Decent has a theory!
She's just your type. Ain't love grand?
Decent Internet Shadchan!
Sure. And this one's even got a name: "Jewel". So pretty.
"FGFM and Jewel sitting in a tree..."
Decent poet.
I think the figures would paint a better picture if all voters were initially undecided.
Post a Comment