Debating teaches invaluable skills to young children and adults alike, primarily the intricate art of constructive listening. Many have come to associate the word “debate” with “arguing” or “obliterating” an opponent’s entire worldview; “liberal/conservative gets destroyed in race debate”, and equally idiotic rhetoric, rack up millions upon millions of views by audiences largely terrified of being in a similar situation themselves. However cowardly, our penchant for passivity is inherent to human beings: we are a non-confrontational species who spend the majority of our lives attracting and nurturing sameness versus novelty. This is a perfect segue, then, to recommendation number one:
Be fair on your opponent. Avoid one of the most common logical fallacies, The Strawman, in which an individual sets up and disputes an argument that is not even being made. Using the Strawman Fallacy, a person distills the opponent’s argument down in order to make it easier to defeat. Strawman statements often follow the now-famous phrase, “So what you’re saying is”. The Strawman at work is illustrated below:
Thanks for reading honestly unorthodox.! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Person 1: I really love bananas.
Person 2: So what you’re saying is you hate mangoes?
Person 1: I didn’t mention mangoes.
Person 2: But your silence implied it, which means your love for bananas means you obviously hate mangoes.
With threats to survival generally far behind us, the main safety hazard becomes that of our own thinking. Debate teaches invaluable skills related to emotional regulation and means by which to maintain our composure when faced with information as equally alarming as, say, a velociraptor. While much of the American populace has grown perfectly shameless in their very public, emotional reactions to perceived threats, I’d like to believe the majority of us bear social etiquette and our own reputation in mind. Mature people may consider a lapse in composure to be embarrassing or even discrediting; today’s younger populations may consider it brave. Pick your poison. But I highly recommend setting your sights on the former.
Contrary to popular belief, debating is not mastering the masturbatory art of the mic-drop. While moments as they appear on YouTube may give off this impression, it’s crucial to differentiate between debating and squabbling. Debating prioritizes empathic, fine-tuned listening and oratory skills in a structured format which explores affirmative and negative positions. Each side, that is, for or against, constructs an argument based on factual data and logical evidence, intentionally omitting mention of how they feel. For the debater that attempts to pull at the heart strings through emotional reasoning tactics, they are often quickly torn down by the opposing team which gladly, yet respectfully, illuminates their argument as faulty. The individual who tries to reason their way out of verbally berating their partner by saying, “Well, I was just mad, so that’s why I yelled”, is a lackluster example of such fallacious logic, as is today’s obsession with rendering all feelings “valid” simply because they feel real to us.
By use of a lighter example, we turn to a true Western delicacy: pizza. A longstanding debate has been that of deciding upon which crust makes for the most orgasmic pie, a contentious argument I myself feel conflicted about because of where I live. Chicagoans are known for deep dish pizza, a form of pizza I personally find superfluous, at best. If I were on the affirmative side of this very important debate, that is, the argument for deep dish being superior to its thin-crusted counterpart, I would be forced to identify with perspectives that differ from my own, while strategically placing my own disgust aside. With a topic as lighthearted and thin-crusted as pizza, it’s arguably (haha… see what I did there?) easier to set aside our personal taste preferences than if the topic required both “teams” to justify their stance on something like affirmative action or gun control.
Artful debating teaches its students to understand the opponent’s argument in the most charitable, well-rounded, and fair manner. Had these skills been made accessible in childhood, we may have prevented the rampant, moral toddlerhood we see in today’s grown-ups; that is, our conversations may have grown richer and more nuanced compared to the tantrum-riddled barrage of whining that’s portrayed in the media. To teach debate to any age, it’s useful to begin by breaking it down into its simplest components. For the sake of this piece, I’ve included only one aspect of preliminary discovery that I consider critical in balanced dialogue: defining terms, and seeking to understand how our explanations and interpretations differ.
Defining terms can be a bit of a double-edged sword; spending too much time outlining terms means the conversation itself is no longer discussion of an issue, but bantering about semantics. This has occurred in several personal examples of my own, as young women have a tendency to distort the issue I present and instead lurch to such thoughtful critique as, “Well… the way you worded it was triggering. I didn’t know what you were talking about, but I just don’t like the way you said it.”
If the way something is worded is jarring, it is the responsibility of the listener to seek clarification. There are several ways to do so, all of which include a thoughtfully-posed question that is careful not to steer or trap the individual you’re speaking with. When we steer questions, we often begin statements with “Well don’t you…?” or “Doesn't that must mean that…” or even “Why would you even …”. Questions framed in this manner are abrasive and can even come across as accusatory, likely provoking defenses in the other person. To forge open-minded dialogue, we must learn to ask better questions. I’ve spoken to hundreds of individuals who manage to carry on an entire conversation only making statements about themselves or only expressing ideas that relate to their own personal ventures. Questions which help others think about their thinking are those which guide thoughtful discussion, such as, “How does this relate to what we’ve discussed?”, “Can you restate that question?”, “What do you think we already know about this topic?”, “How else could this question be answered?”
In the examples stated below, I implore the reader to find the communicative errors:
* “So when did you decide that it was okay to harm an entire community of my people?”
* “After being dismissed and undervalued for so long, it’s our turn to be centered. We have earned the right to be loud and do whatever it takes to be heard.”
In the first example, the pseudo-individual has committed a fallacy referred to as “Leading the Witness”. This tactic was flagrantly put to use in Netflix’s popular docuseries, “Making A Murderer”, in which cops effectively convinced a young man to admit guilt to a crime he did not commit. In reference to the quote above, the speaker is assuming the truth of the conclusion before they’ve even allowed the other person to speak. They’re assuming, then, that the individual is motivated to “harm” an entire group of people. And, you know what they say about assuming… it makes a complete and utter ass out of you and you alone. Not only is the assumption the problem in the above statement, but there’s the now-popular mention of words like “harm”, which have quite clearly been exposed to a serious bout of concept creep. Concept creep occurs when the definition of something is broadened and relaxed over time, essentially allowing for anything to be included. “Harm” is a quintessential vessel for concept creep: what began as physical altercation and signs of physical wounds quickly morphed into hurt feelings, triggering words and images, Republicans, Trump Supporters, and anything we mildly dislike.
The second statement commits a conversational crime referred to as moral licensing. With moral licensing, the individual believes that because of their consistently good behavior and extreme suffering or sacrifice, they have earned the right to behave inappropriately and cruelly, free of repercussions. While I hate to bring up the phrase “Cancel Culture”, it’s the most relevant example: so long as you hurt the feelings of a fragile person, their attempts to shame you, slander you, destroy your livelihood, and even physically assault you are copacetic.
Our “triggered” feelings do not fall under the jurisdiction of the speaker, and they certainly aren’t always correct simply because we strongly identify with them. For conversations about more vague terms, like “neurodiversity”, “trauma”, “trauma-informed care”, or even “harm” as examples, it’s imperative the definition be delineated at the outset of the conversation. As mentioned earlier, much of our English language has been debased, as we’ve prioritized emotional experiences over, you know, reality. While I do understand the importance in hearing, understanding, and even validating expressed feelings, we cannot fall into the trap of believing our “lived experience” provides a compelling argument simply because it’s near and dear to our hearts. My cat is also near and dear to me, but he’d make a shitty raconteur.
A single group of strategies that are easily taught fall under an umbrella referred to as “side-switching” drills. As implied by the title, side-switch exercises require each person to develop as many reasons as they can against their own argument and for the opposing argument. They see their perspective through the eyes of someone holding a conflicting idea and proceed to develop an entire case against themselves. In doing so, we avoid the confirmation bias, or our tendency to only seek out information that is aligned with our perspective, and we humanize the opponent. It’s quite natural to feel attacked when we’re proven wrong, as the sting of correction is one central to any and all sides of an argument. In embracing this truth and understanding that there are multiple sides to every discussion, though, we develop a more nuanced viewpoint that speaks to both sides’ main concerns. Bear this in mind: you will not change anybody’s mind if you fail to connect your argument to their concerns.
Side-Switch Exercise 1: The Devil’s Advocate
Construct an entire argument for a viewpoint you personally find repugnant. Yes, you read that correctly: repugnant. The entire purpose of playing Devil’s Advocate is to absorb perceptions or attitudes you feel you couldn’t possibly understand in good faith. Again, it’s human nature to align ourselves with those who share similar, if not identical, views as ourselves. From the vantage point of our fragile egos, it certainly serves us to be affirmed and validated versus challenged.
To play Devil’s Advocate, choose 3-5 topics that you’d consider contentious. Identify where you stand on these issues, such as if you strongly agree, strongly disagree, or somewhere in between, and develop 3-5 reasons why the repugnant view may be the more favorable view.
Side-Switch Exercise 2: What Have I Done?
While this is geared more toward those who have experienced formal debates, it can easily be adapted to organic, day-to-day conversation. The “What Have I Done?” strategy in the realm of formal debating asks the individual to identify the reasons why they lost a debate. Did they spend too much time on definitions, leaving too little time to thoroughly describe their evidence? Were they distracted by a comment the opponent made and therefore unable to refocus their attention toward the discussion? Devise as many reasons as you’re able to. None of the reasons can be related to something you believe your opponent is guilty of.
As it relates to more organic conversation, reflect upon a heated discussion that didn’t end as you’d hoped. Perhaps it escalated into a screaming match where both parties felt the other was to blame for their seething rage. Similar to above, ask yourself: What role did I play in this conversation ending so poorly? How did I contribute to the anger, frustration, sadness, etcetera? What about this do I take the blame for? Again, devise as many reasons as you’re able to.
The Justify-It Game
In this drill, which can be a silly game to get kids thinking, the first person must claim that the statement they’re about to make is true. For the sake of the drill, they do not have to believe, in their heart of hearts, the statement is true. The child may say something like, “Rattlesnakes would make great house pets.” The next person must provide an affirmative statement supporting this claim. The second child may say, “That’s totally true! Rattlesnakes eat every 2 weeks, so they’re way more cost-effective than something like a dog, who eats multiple times a day.”
Not much has to change if this drill is conducted with adults. This is similar to the Devil’s Advocate drill in that the adult must develop an affirmative statement for something they may disagree with; it’s slightly different in that any topic can be chosen, and only one statement of affirmation is required. This said, it’s important the statement be developed as quickly as possible--- thinking on one’s feet is how we avoid platitudes, overgeneralizations, and teleprompter-sounding dialogue.
The Headliner Game
Choose a grabby headline from any physical or digital media outlet and skim its contents. Following a quick scan of the article, summarize it out loud in 1 minute or less without any preparation. This again speaks to the ability to think quickly on our feet: while thorough preparation and evidence-based material are essential for forging conversations of substance, we must also pull from our current knowledge base and develop versatility in how we communicate. This is where so much of today’s discourse goes awry: when people run out of their very short list of one-liners, statistics, and number figures, they’re unable to think critically-yet-swiftly to sustain the conversation.
This is a wonderful game for children and adults, alike, who have a habit of rambling and getting sidetracked while explaining an idea. It can be easy to get caught up in trivial details that are largely meaningless to the overall heart of discussion, which lends a hand to the rigid 60-second time frame for this exercise.
The greatest pillars of conversation rest on our ability to listen effectively and communicate productively. With the rise in AI and social media platforms only growing more powerful, our conversational capabilities are continuously under threat. Our only chance at regaining connection and fostering meaning in our relationships is to keep the conversations occurring, face to face, voice to voice.
The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place…
Thanks for reading honestly unorthodox.! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
