Sometime in recent history, debates were redefined into a winner-take-all, zero-sum contest of one’s skills at arguing.
Yesterday I wrote at length about the sorry state of political debate, but the fact is that this has extended to all matters of debate.
In university, students are often told to take the side of a debate they do not support so they can better understand the contending position, but this misses the whole point of what debate could be.
Two contending sides battling to the proverbial death over an issue is not an exercise of intelligence but of meaningless obstinacy.
This comes back to the idea of perspective; if two people have two very different perspectives, they will approach an issue from opposite directions and come to very different conclusions, but at the same time, each one is blinded by their own perspective and unable to see the full picture.
Modern debate teaches arrogance and inflexibility, which is about as conducive to gaining knowledge and understanding as covering one’s eyes is to learning to read.
Meaningful debate is when two opposing sides commit to coming to a solution together.
Collaboration and sharing knowledge are integral to improving understanding for all parties.
This is not to say that arguing has no place in debate, but rather to say that the goal of such a debate should be a shared understanding of what is right, not the systematic destruction of another’s argument.
We need to embark upon a Socratic exploration for the truth together, in collaboration, not in a contest.
Imagine a world where finding the truth was more important than proving someone else wrong.
I want to live in a world like that.
In my next post I will be exploring some of the reasons why so many young people are disillusioned by Western politics.