It is no secret that America’s current political climate is more tense and polarized than it has been in a long time. Such polarization puts the spotlight on political debate, with many people flocking to the media to watch the exciting, yet disappointedly chaotic and even toxic debates held between prominent politicians and political figures.
However, there seems to be an invisible elephant in the room that many people have glossed over–what even is the purpose of debate?
Some organizations do present a well-defined set of objectives. The National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA), for example, describes debate as an activity that “involves an individual or a team of students working to effectively convince a judge that their side of a resolution or topic is, as a general principle, more valid.”
However, the NSDA also lists a secondary purpose of debate that is produced as a result of the first: “Students in debate come to thoroughly understand both sides of an issue, having researched each extensively, and learn to think critically about every argument that could be made on each side.”
Unfortunately, the NSDA is an organization that presides over a national competition that is reserved for middle and high school students. When diving into the so-called “real world” of politics, no such standards exist.
There are a number of reasons why so many Americans view modern political discourse as toxic, but one reason that is rarely discussed in the mainstream is the aforementioned lack of clarity on what the purpose of such discourse even is.
It is not difficult to find guides and videos created for the purpose of helping people “win” debates, but on the other hand, it is not as easy to find media that frames debate as a genuine exchange of ideas in order to evolve the perspectives of both parties. This phenomenon is further highlighted by a recent trend in the field of content creation.
Various “debate bros,” like political commentator Ben Shapiro, have created extremely clickable and sometimes viral videos teaching their impressionable audiences how to “win” debates.
Ignoring his obvious bias and numerous hasty generalizations against “the left,” Shapiro’s video garnered over 400,000 views. But while Shapiro’s “facts” supposedly “don’t care” about our “feelings,” he cannot deny the very real fact that he titled his video “Ben Shapiro’s Secrets to Winning Any Argument” and only spent seven seconds briefly discussing the benefits of opening one’s mind during a debate, only to immediately state such openness as another method to becoming a “great debater.”
Obviously, a single debate bro cannot be the source of such a “debate to win” mentality. However, it is concerning that there isn’t an equal or greater amount of advocacy for a “debate to learn” mentality. Such advocacy would give political debaters an alternative objective.
When there is no set objective for a debate, it is natural for people to flock to conclusions that are the most widespread and viral in the public eye. People want to see their side win, so they want the person representing their side to go into the debate with the goal to win. Naturally, that debater will feel incentivized to accept the “debate to win” mentality, while having little motivation to consider the “debate to learn” mentality.
The need for more widespread advocacy of the “debate to learn” mentality is crucial for alleviating the polarization within our political world, with studies showing that those who hold such a mentality “were less inclined to agree that there was an objective truth about that topic than were those who engaged in a competitive interaction.”
However, that is not to say that there is no room for a “debate to win” mindset. In fact, many organizations, such as the NSDA, give young people the platform to enhance their rhetorical skills through competition.
The reason why the “debate to win” mindset thrives much better in a systematically competitive setting is that there is an understanding between both parties that the debate is supposed to be a competition. Both sides understand that what they are arguing for or against may not perfectly reflect their actual views, meaning that there is minimal animosity towards each other on the basis of their personal biases.
Additionally, competitive debaters, especially when they pass the preliminary rounds of state or national level tournaments, realize that the people they are seeking to impress are experienced, impartial judges who know exactly what to look for when comparing the strengths and weaknesses of both sides’ arguments. Therefore, it is much more unlikely for the competitors to rely on personal insults and cheap shots that various politicians regularly employ, for experienced judges will not be influenced the way an inexperienced crowd would be.
In general, competitive debate itself has a place in society. Problems only arise when people start adopting the “debate to win” mindset from competitive debates in the incorrect settings.
Private, casual, and constructive dialogue serves as the basis for developing one’s ideas about the political world. It is here where people are exposed to the opinions of others, and being able to take that step outside of one’s bubble is crucial for opening one’s perspective of the world. A “debate to win” mindset only hinders one’s ability to truly understand other perspectives.
On the other end of the spectrum are public debates. These often competitive debates are largely performative, and more times than not, they are designed to stir up the audience in order to get them to watch more. These are the debates that are often re-uploaded onto various media platforms with clickable titles in order to garner more views. As a matter of fact, some of the most prominent culprits behind the creation of these public spectacles are the aforementioned debate bros.
However, while Ben Shapiro can “DESTROY” as many “Woke” college students as he wants, he cannot deny that the publicity of his performative spectacles is DESTROYING the public’s view of debate–both competitive and non-competitive.
Setting up a platform for “debate” that guarantees that one’s opponent is much younger, more inexperienced, and unfamiliar with the intricacies of argumentation is not only a waste of time, but it is also detrimental to the future of both competitive debate, and debate as a whole.
In this case, Shapiro’s audience will only be more invigorated to adopt a “debate to win” mindset. Meanwhile, both his opponents and neutral watchers will only be more turned off from the idea of debate, as not only do they lack the ability to distinguish between competitive and non-competitive debate, but also because their first exposure to debate will seem like a pointless bullying session.
A video made by the YouTube channel Wisecrack sums it up best.
“So, rule number one: being a debate bro is, get ready for it, it’s not actually about debating, bro. Now the arena of debate isn’t a forum; it’s a stage, and arguments are won by performance rather than substance.”
Performative debates are a product of the most extreme end of the “debate to win” mindset, and viewers must be careful when consuming this type of content. We must retain our ability to recognize that our “debate to win” mindsets should be reserved for competitive settings that are designed to promote legitimate argumentation between equals.
Meanwhile, we must not allow the toxic dogfights between politicians and the petty, performative spectacles spurred by debate bros to taint our perception of debate as a whole. Not every debate must be competitive, and those that are should be held at the jurisdiction of those with the most experience, and not in the hands of an impressionable audience.
The future of debate lies within both mindsets and our ability to determine the best situation to implement each one.
