Is Debate Ruining Our Society?

By Moses Johnson III on October 3, 2015

Harry Houck (left) and Marc Lamont Hill Debate a hot issue (Image from CNN video)

In our society, televisions, radios, and newspapers are filled with debate. There is no event of significance that goes by without sparking a talk-point laden discussion between one group or another. Debate has become so prevalent that it has risen to the level of national spectacle, raising the profile of intellects, politicians, and pundits alike.

As college students, we are tasked with broadening our understanding of our chosen field as well as a world that refuses to slow around us. For most, this is a time of exposure to differing thoughts and ideas at levels that will not be experienced at any other point in our lives. Our system of education establishes this as a goal and advertises it to the prospective student as well as the employer; those who pass through these halls will be thinkers, leaders, and general successes.

We are, however, firmly entrenched in the age of the debate. We have been brought through our lives with corrective discourse and assessments that give little room for the nuance of the most Spartan existence. The art of developing techniques and strategies to assert ones points and perspective over an opponent has taken a form that creates drama, intensity, and entertainment. We are beset by forces that look to judge us by the standards of our times.

And so an issue arises. How do we set ourselves in this world of rhetoric, schisms, and shade? Do we file into our respective trenches, claiming the mantle of our predecessors and blazing trails into the frontiers of debate? Is debate the ideal format for translation of news and information or discussing concepts and methods?

Debates and discussions within most mediums increase gaps between schools of thought and rarely result in any form of consensus. We turn away from discourse, moving instead towards debate as a major mode of communication. The results are multiple views with their own facts, definitions, and rhetoric that is spoken without significant moderation or authoritative challenge. Each view is communicated to separated constituents for their listening pleasure and to undecided parties for their poorly informed consideration.

The way that the problems of division and the assumed need for dominance reveal themselves in modern society can be clearly witnessed by following our adaptation of debate in media, and our institutions of higher learning. Lines are routinely blurred between what is considered fact and conjecture. Mutual understanding and the confluence of ideas give way to ideological death-matches that seek to leave one party comprehensively refuted.

One who participates in a debating style would rely on presenting arguments in a manner that either change the mind of the opponent or causes that person to appear wrong, or lacking credulity. This tendency toward debate implies that there is always one fully “correct” and “incorrect” side to an argument and that it is therefore not unreasonable to reach for tactics beyond the scope of the content of the argument in the face of defeat. The resulting circumstances create people who hone techniques to “win” against “enemies” as opposed to listening to peers and contemporaries. Reactions to debate follow variations that mirror the diversity of debaters. Some people choose to disengage, to present personal or unrelated information, or even to develop their rhetoric to fare better with an otherwise faulty argument. Many times, while opponents show their ability to debate, the originating issue becomes muddled or lost entirely. As an avid social media observer, I witness discussions dissolve into roasting sessions because some people aren’t prepared to contribute to conversations opting instead to bypass the context of a situation for their conception of what is right, reasonable, or fair.

The nature of debate in our society now amounts to at least one participant’s ability to hold to their thoughts and feelings regardless of the logic, considerations, or context presented to them. The focus on one’s ability to remain “on subject” is a wall that cannot be scaled. It is an opportunity for mutual understanding and advancement squandered.

Instead of immediately listing samples, I will invite you to peruse your preferred format of information and notice how adversarial, contentious, and personal discussions over the topics of the day can get. At the time that I write this, we stand in the wake of another school shooting, a television show writer airing his formative grievances in his work, a cadre of politicians speaking out on this or that, and the latest unresolved issues in sports. Each of these events carries with it communities ready to silence, belittle, shame, or otherwise dismiss others through our great American obsession; debate.

Let’s have a healthy conversation (From PBS.org)

Conversation provides a framework in which people of differing opinions can discuss, collaborate, and decipher the truth of ideals, perspectives, and methodologies. Perhaps we should seek to converse as opposed to debate, thereby finding common ground and mutual respect of the ability to think if not of thoughts themselves.

Follow Uloop

Apply to Write for Uloop News

Join the Uloop News Team

Discuss This Article

Get Top Stories Delivered Weekly

Back to Top

Log In

Contact Us

Upload An Image

Please select an image to upload
Note: must be in .png, .gif or .jpg format
OR
Provide URL where image can be downloaded
Note: must be in .png, .gif or .jpg format

By clicking this button,
you agree to the terms of use

By clicking "Create Alert" I agree to the Uloop Terms of Use.

Image not available.

Add a Photo

Please select a photo to upload
Note: must be in .png, .gif or .jpg format