Please don’t think I’m confrontational when I tell you I enjoy a good debate. There is something about swapping perceived facts and personal points of view that really helps you sort out your true position on an issue. It’s always interesting to take in and share concepts not previously considered. If done well, individuals on both sides of the debate walk away from the process with a clearer measure of what they believe and a better understanding of their opponent’s position. A lot of good can come from both sides understanding each other a bit better, even if they don’t end up agreeing when all is said and done.
That said, many people will quickly tell you they hate debating. I think it is more accurate to say they hate fighting. I don’t blame them. Fighting isn’t appealing to me either. Too often, what is pegged as a spirited debate, is really a catfight of barbs and bully style brainwashing that have little to do with the actual subject at hand. In a genuine debate, participants are not analyzed and reviewed. The issue on the table is the target of any and all commentary. There is no cause for sticking a finger in the face of an opponent or calling that individual a derogatory name. One’s position is justified with facts; not by belittling another’s intelligence or morality. Making a debate about the debaters, in such a negative way, has little to nothing to do with sorting out the actual pros and cons of a particular issue.
So why have debates turned into heated character assaults? Hard to know for sure. It’s a reasonable assumption the modern day political process has contributed. Often times candidates who don’t have a clear position on issues distract from that fact by switching the focus to negative attributes of their opponent. Voices become raised and participants start talking over one another while pointing crooked fingers and spitting out constructive criticism designed to embarrass or hurt. It’s not pleasant. If we continue with this trend, it won’t be long before the new joke is “I went to a debate and a hockey game broke out!”
To get the debate process back on track, I think adults could take a lesson from high school debate teams. To work through issues, participants are assigned to the ‘con’ or ‘pro’ position. One may end up debating the con side for an issue where they would normally take the pro stance. It’s amazing what you learn when you are forced to find facts supporting a concept or practice you wouldn’t normally agree with. Personally attacking the individual with the pro position is less likely. That would be indirectly attacking yourself, after all.
I’ve purposely taken a position opposite my true belief in debates where the argument is heavily one sided. Talk about an eye opening process. Not only do I find cracks in the solid position I felt I had of an issue, I experience the uncomfortable feeling of being the odd man out. I have never been a minority by faith or ethnicity. If being in the minority when arguing a position is in any way close to the experience of being a minority in general, my blinders are off as to how frustrating that might be. The nasty name calling, dings on my intelligence and gang-up style influence of the masses can be really draining.
Debates really can be a learning experience on many levels. If we treat the process with respect and size up the issue instead of the participants, we could start having a positive impact on how we view ourselves and others. It’s good to put your position on an issue to the test every now and then. If it’s the right position to take, it will survive the scrutiny of review. If, after all is said and done, you are left to question what you originally believed about a topic or other people, you’ve grown in some way. If you can accept there really are two sides to every issue, you are better able to respect those who may think differently than you. Let’s find a way to accomplish all of these things while leaving the hockey game at the ice arena.
Well said! When I was in high school, our political science teacher made us research the platform of the party opposite the one we thought we were affiliated with. I ended up researching the republicans and found out that “they” actually didn’t have everything wrong. To this day, I cannot say I totally fit into either party. And I would have never known this if I hadn’t seen it through the eyes of the other guy.
You never know about a guy until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes.