More Arguments, Less Arguing: Reclaiming Debate as a Transformative Practice
Debate has become a dirty word but it can be reclaimed
2024 is going to be a difficult year for American civil society. Polarization and the normalization of political violence are becoming increasingly prevalent, with mutually escalating hostilities on all sides. Our social fabric may be tested in ways unseen in our lifetime. We need to work with communities in cultivating as much resiliency as possible, lest we spiral into violence or civil war 2.0. In an age of unprecedented political conflict and division, the remedy I’m proposing may surprise you, but here it is: we need more arguments, not less; more debate, not less.
Words like “argument” and “debate” often get a bad rap in dialogue and bridge-building circles, suggesting escalating conflict, bad-faith engagement, manipulative rhetorical tactics, or coercive attempts at persuasion. The desire to “win” the argument crowds out opportunities for mutual understanding, empathy, and relationship building, leaving all parties feeling misunderstood and slighted. Such negative connotations are also exacerbated by media portrayals of debate, where political candidates spout sensationalized talking points and canned soundbites in an attempt to capture attention. It’s no wonder that many people interested in healthier political dialogue shun notions of debate and argument, seeing them as fundamentally inimical to depolarized bridging.
However, my contention is that completely eschewing debate and argumentation in favor of dialogue is a mistake. What is needed is a healthy reclamation of these disciplines, reframing them as art forms and catalysts for personal development, rather than culture war bludgeons. To chart out what this could look like, let’s first examine what an argument is.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, an argument could be “an angry quarrel or disagreement,” or “a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of view.” An argument could be an angry interpersonal conflict, or it could be the justification for a conclusion, illuminating the various epistemic ingredients that “back up” a belief. The former can be called arguing, while the latter is making an argument. This definitional distinction points us back to the title of this essay: We need more arguments and less arguing. And making more arguments results in less arguing.
Here are three reasons to make more arguments when in dialogue.
First, when we make arguments and provide reasons (evidence, facts, sound inferences, etc.) to support a conclusion, we are NOT engaging in escalating behavior, like name calling or personal attacks (ad hominem), using physical intimidation tactics, or resorting to inflammatory labels or soundbites (“you’re a fascist!”). By engaging in argument and not resorting to polarizing tactics, better dialogue can be achieved.
Second, making an argument also implies that your interlocutor is reasonable and can understand and respond to your reasons for supporting a belief. It also enables expansion of perspective, as more quality information is provided. By contrast, personal attacks, raising your voice, repeating the same talking points more forcefully, and other ineffective methods don’t offer new ways to understand something.
Third, making an argument means that you are still having a conversation, and not canceling the person or slamming the door on the relationship. It implies that you still believe that a good faith exchange of ideas is possible, and that maintaining a relationship despite disagreement is a valuable use of time and energy.
Now let’s turn to the value of debate. Merriam-Webster defines debate as “a contention by words or arguments” and in a more formal context, “a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides.” The latter definition has a more structured connotation, with debate being a formal process that one can be invited into.
As I alluded to earlier, our idea of debate has been contaminated through televised political debates, chalk full of egotism, sensationalism, moralistic pandering, and manufactured conflicts. However, in the Buddhist tradition that I grew up in, debate has a diametrically opposite purpose. Popular in many monasteries across Asia, debate is used as a tool to sharpen one’s intellectual and rhetorical prowess, which complemented meditation practices used to quiet or transcend the mind. In such spiritual contexts, debate is seen as an art form, a way of cultivating more awareness, knowledge, and self-understanding, and not as a way to seek attention, elicit donations, or engage in vapid virtue signaling. Debate used in this tradition becomes a tool to transcend ego, not further entrench into it.
All of this begs a million-dollar question: How do we reclaim debate as an art form and as a tool for character growth, and bake new norms around debate into our polarized culture? Projects like the “anti-debate” seek to move from toxic to healthier debates, while Braver Angels also has a debate program that complements more dialogue-oriented workshops and events.
Several years ago, I sought to bring my Buddhist understanding of debate to the American political arena and formed a group called “The crossfire dojo.” People gathered every week to debate a controversial political topic, from guns to immigration to abortion. However, unlike in conventional debate settings, the goals of the debate were not to crush the opposition, as our criteria for what constituted an effective debate were quite different:
Each debater would be encouraged to steelman the opposing argument, demonstrating that they understand the opposing view, paraphrasing it back using their own words. Each debater would also be encouraged to put their own spin on the opposing argument in an attempt to make it even stronger (or more interesting) than its initial articulation. I call this the “titanium man,” which goes one step beyond the steelman. Doing so would garner a positive response from the audience. Demonstrating an understanding of the opposing view was hailed as an important skill.
If a debater feels stumped or encounters an argument that they can’t rebut, is asked a question that they need more time to ponder, or changes their mind during the debate, they would admit so in the moment, which would be heartily celebrated by the audience as an example of humility and intellectual honesty. Uncertainty and mental flexibility are seen as virtues, not deficits.
After the debate was over, a debrief would commence, with prompts encouraging self-reflection and personal growth. For example, one debater shared how he felt triggered during a debate on race, and how he had more work to do in examining his biases and emotional reactivities. Sharing moments of personal growth and viewpoint expansion were heavily celebrated. Personal development became a core feature and motivation to engage in debate.
On some occasions, the debaters were chosen in advance, but the topics and positions were not, so the debaters only knew what they would be arguing for once the debate started. Many debate programs use this format. This had a powerful impact on the wider community, as everyone started researching every argument on every issue out of fear that they would look incompetent once the debate began. This had a profound depolarization effect, as it normalized the study of every perspective on the table, including those that people vigorously disagreed with. One participant said that after exploring the opposing side, he felt more empathy and understanding, helping to depolarize his relationships with those on the other side (in his case with Pro-Israel Jews). Such were the benevolent cascading effects of our debate group, where the community as a whole developed a broader, more tolerant perspective on many polarized issues.
Conclusion:
While my debate group has long disbanded, perhaps it’s time to resuscitate such ideas to cultivate a community that can fruitfully explore differences. Debate and argument need not be culture war spectacles, but powerful tools for bringing communities together across divisions to form deeper bonds in spite of vigorous disagreement. Such norm change mechanisms are needed more than ever, especially heading into the new year.
If you want to talk more about designing something like this for your community, please reach out to me!