We debate. We are a nation of debaters. Turn on any news talk show and debates will be raging on many pertinent issues: Should Barbie be able to wear lingerie? Is Mexican food really better than Italian? The more rancorous and outlandish debates become, the more entertaining they are for wide-eyed audiences. The problem is that people base their interaction with family, friends and co-workers on this model. Sadly, the way we converse reflects a structure in which holding to an extreme viewpoint is rewarded and the capacity to empathize, understand, and thoughtfully consider the other person’s perspective is squeezed out.
It is important to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy debate. Healthy debate involves an attitude of mutual education and understanding in which differing viewpoints are welcome. Unhealthy debate tries to compel assent, to win at all costs, and sounds more like a battle. Benjamin Franklin understood that “Arguing is a game that two can play at. But it is a strange game in that neither opponent ever wins.” Since arguing is a zero sum game, it is imperative to learn to change argumentative encounters into healthy debates, where both parties feel they are being listened to and understood.
Debate teams may develop quicker response, sharper logic, and effective voice production, but this is training in argumentation, not thinking. Who really cares which is the better debater? Shouldn’t we be instilling values of dialogue and cooperation with people of different viewpoints, instead of trying to beat them in a competition of wits? Even ordinary conversation has become a skirmish rather than an exchange of ideas. Vanquishing the opponent takes the place of understanding the issue.
Yesterday I was having a conversation with a friend about the morality of euthanasia and realized how quickly he became entrenched in his position. He had stopped listening and was simply waiting for me to finish my sentence so he could pursue his argument. In these circumstances I’m always curious as to what exactly the other person thinks he or she is accomplishing. Is there a judge hiding in the corner that is keeping track of the logic, supporting data, and sentence structure? Is there a trophy for winning the argument? We are so used to having this type of debate, one with winners and losers, that we don’t know any better. We have debased knowledgeable, mutually enlightening discussions with these games of intellectual jousting. And so we must reevaluate what really matters in such debates. Should all of us be trying to convince others that we alone are in possession of the truth? Or should we try to see that both sides have some truth in them, and that through the respectful exchange of ideas and perspectives we are able to better understand the issue?
Even the “truths” we cling to most tenaciously are, in the end, unknowns. Neither you nor I, nor anyone else, has all the answers. Truth is relative to the facts on which it is based. Wendell Phillips poignantly observed, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Similarly, eternal digging for facts is the price of truth. Internalizing this principle is quite humbling. Afterwards you realize that, whenever you have a conversation, it may just be that you don’t know everything and it is worth listening to the other person, not simply to point out flaws in his or her logic, but to gain a better sense of the problem.
The essential importance of sharing our beliefs with others is best summed up by Mark Twain: “Our opinions do not really blossom into fruition until we have expressed them to someone else.” We as humans have an amazing gift for dialogue. We learn from the views, beliefs, and understanding of those around us. Thus, we must come to understand what the dynamics of a healthy debate looks like and then model our own discussions on that understanding.
To abide by my own principles, I invite you to respond to this article. Let a multitude of voices join the discussion. There won’t be a trophy, but it’s possible we might all become a bit wiser in the process.