Something a bit different this week as we are going to be debating debate itself!
Of old, debate may have been championed as a way of settling our differences with words rather than fists/arms, and no doubt it is a preferable alternative to pistols at dawn, but it remains fundamentally a battle. Protagonists are described as “winning” or “losing” a debate as they would a battle or any other competitive activity. When conducted fairly, and with mutual respect, a debate can be a good way of getting to understand an issue and the different views people have on that issue. However, though I have memories of such civilised debates on Question Time with Sir Robin Day back in the 80s, it feels to me like the standard of debate has fallen dramatically over my lifetime and that debate has become more inflammatory and less enlightening.
As with anything that people see as a battle - something that they must fight to win - it is not surprising that there is a tendency towards inflammatory confrontation and a focus on the things that divide the protagonists rather than those that unite them. What is more, the discussion can often become starkly polarised, with moderate views and those that emphasise a dimension different to the main axis of disagreement being marginalised with all focus on that main axis and the two opposing views. Complex and subtle arguments for a particular stance don’t work well in a battle scenario - short, pithy soundbites are far more effective, and personal attacks more effective still!
The protagonists of a debate may in fact have largely similar views, which when shown on a Venn diagram would yield a large area of overlap. When viewed in the context of a debate however, it may appear that they agreed on almost nothing, and the Venn diagram would have a narrow area of overlap and large mutually exclusive areas of disagreement. The first of the diagrams shown above is intended to illustrate this, together with the verbal hostilities launched back and forth between the two sides of the debate! I’ve called it ol' big ears!
So what, if anything, can we do to improve on ol' big ears?
One way to make a debate more cordial and less confrontational is to simply not invite those that you disagree with to that debate! Recently there has been a rise in the practice of labelling certain views as extreme, and of de-platforming those that hold them. But this is no solution to the problem, by sweeping those views under the carpet you do not change the fact that they are held, you simply suppress them. Even those included in a debate may often feel that they cannot express their true thoughts or feelings, especially if they are not deemed to be politically correct. There is a real danger that by stifling free speech in this way, the picture painted of society becomes more and more distorted from reality, and that people are then shocked when democratic votes, which are not affected by suppression, produce apparently shocking results.
Personally I’m strongly against any suppression of free speech, but what changes to debating would I like to see - what does my alternative to ol' big ears look like? Well, if we want to be enlightened rather than inflamed, surely the purpose of the exercise is for each to understand the other’s view better by the end of that exercise. Also, for there to be a greater understanding of the differences between all differing points of view and a focus on the elements of the issue that we agree upon as much as those over which we disagree. In Venn diagram terms, lots of largely overlapping areas, with a focus on that overlap and a general sense of enlightenment - I give you li'l miss sunshine!
The first half of the night will be an opportunity for all to put forward their own views on the current standard of debate, and on what they feel could be done (if anything) to improve on the historical form. For example: Could we introduce rules, or at least conventions that penalise (or at least highlight) personal attacks without preventing free speech. How can we stop interruptions (without interrupting ourselves)? Would an instant fact checker be useful?
In the second half, we’ll try discussing some controversial topics under these new rules and see if we do indeed get an improvement on ‘ol big ears!