On conversations, debates and, most of all, understanding

Debates are everywhere in our lifes. I have constant debates with myself on what choices to make, what food to eat, books or papers to read, as well as I’m currently having a debate on writing this article. Debates are also part of our academic life, whether it is about Model United Nations or a club that discusses contemporary issues. Topics range with societal concerns of climate emergency, or philosophical insights into how the mind works. Moreover, debates have also become a source of educational entertainment where we can see how speakers can engage in heated discussion, but also exchange a few laughs with the public in front of them, or in front of the monitor.

However, whenever it is listening to debates, watching them or in the past participating in a few, I feel like a lot of people, including me, had some misunderstandings concerning the art of debating. Upon reflection, I wanted to share some of these misunderstandings, and clear them out. This could hopefully help us not only debate better, but in general, craft good argumentation to defend our ideas, and, most importantly, understand each other.

The illusion of the existence of the right and wrong answers

Debates are often presented as a dichotomy: two ideas that have to oppose each other, and only the one which is well-defended not only triumphs, but also trumps over the opposite idea. Such dichotomy can be exemplified in many scenarios: capitalism vs. socialism, nativism vs. empiricism, truth vs. meaning, among others.

However, it is observed that such dichotomy is more useful to stifle debating, than it is for advancing it. While the existence itself of the dichotomy is not problematic, how we sometimes address it yields problems. The presence of the dichotomy can sometimes provide the illusion that there exists a side which is right, which in turn entails that the opposite side is wrong. What if right and wrong existed in both sides of the debate: both in capitalism and socialism, or in both nativism and empiricism?

It also seems that subscribing thoroughly to the dichotomy may also place shackles in good argumentation. For example, as suggested above, there exists rights and wrongs in both sides of the dichotomy, such as capitalism and socialism. In the debates surrounding this topic I’ve seen over the years, I’ve noticed how proponents of either camp attempt to portray their own ideas not only as “devoid of imperfections”, but that the contrary is “rippled with mistakes”. However, I think that in debates each side should acknowledge each other’s strengths and face their own weaknesses. This is because in the art of debating, one should defend good ideas, not ideology. Debating is about pragmatism whilst defending an idea, not about being a ideologue.

Debating, as a consequence, is about understanding the other side, and understanding one’s own side.

Be debatable, not indisputable

Another misunderstanding I had in the past is that I thought a debate is about “winning”. Connected to the above, it is not only about defending my position, but also defeating the counterpart. However, this is not only a selfish thought, it is also quiet a useless one too.

By trying to win a debate, or craft the indisputable argument, I tend to resort to confusing the reader. What better way to confuse the reader than to appear to say something, whilst saying nothing. I really liked Prof. Steven Pinker’s talk on how to write good prose, in which he shared practices that even I nowadays need to correct:

• Writing using extremely niche verbose, and avoiding simpler terms that could still carry over important and clear ideas.
• Apologizing too much (in the video it is discussed starting from 12:42 onwards), which refers to arguments of structure “it is difficult to define what the mind is, so let us not venture in making any substantial claim about it”. In such scenarios, I think the pervasive thought of wanting to become indisputable drives us to write in ways that can’t be argued against. However, I think we should use classic prose and risk in possibly making mistakes, as long as we defend our ideas thoroughly.
• A problem that I have is to either talk too abstractly or exploit uncertainty in phrases such as “such result is most likely to be significant”, “our experiment need further experiments”. By fearing to be wrong, I attempt to exploit uncertainty to masquerade empty arguments, and thus as consequence, such arguments (most likely) say nothing.

I highly recommend Prof. Steven Pinker’s talk as the teachings there not only apply to writing good prose, but also in debates.

Another way to sound indisputable is to basically hold no position, that is, being neutral on a debate. Something similar occurs in John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight’s show on Climate Change Debate, where the skepticism towards climate change while evidence in favor of climate change are presented as equally valid. Instead of thinking as two sides of a debate, one way to sound indisputable is for a debater to argue that all aspects of the two sides of a debate are equally valid, and thus we should reach no definite conclusion since everything is relative and depends on the point of view in which you’re arguing. While I believed that reaching a common ground between contending sides was important in a debate, nowadays, I argue that we should choose one and defend it with valid argumentation.

Choosing to be debatable instead of indisputable risks being wrong on an idea. Whilst in the past I thought this meant a loss in credibility on my side, nowadays, I opt to believe this isn’t in any ways negative per se. Knowing where I’m wrong is rather beneficial for knowing what are the aspects of an idea I should improve and defend, and if indefeasible, just abandon it.

Finally, the following is an article in Spanish I wrote on the dichotomy of the left and right, arguing that a pluralist approach that can identify the complementarity to each other and their attempt to solve the same problems concerning society. The idea I wanted to get across is that understanding is paramount when it comes to debating. The questions I wanted to raise concern what if opposite ideas have complementary elements with respect to one another. What if an idea’s strengths don’t really undermine other ideas.

¿Izquierda o derecha? Esa es la cuestión…

Para aquel aficionado espectador del presente panorama político, surge quizás una de las más intrigantes interrogantes que consecuentemente desemboca en definir una propia identidad ideológica: ¿hacia qué lado del espectro izquierda-derecha es preferible inclinarse? Al fin y al cabo, en medio del actual mundo exageradamente polarizado en donde ambos lados han mostrado excesiva hostilidad entre sí, hay un empuje intrínseco al individuo a optar por cuál elegir. Una respuesta pertinente sería el ser “centrista”, lo cual tiene sentido dado lo negativo y controversial expuestos mutuamente (en extra-simplificado términos, el capitalismo que abre camino para promover el desarrollo y avance socio-económico, pero que desencadenó en sobre-explotación de recursos, así como una marcada desigualdad, de la cual el comunismo buscó una alternativa para luchar por la voz de aquellos trabajadores, pero que resultó en la estagnación del desarrollo acompañado del autoritarismo ineficiente).

Ambos lados, junto a sus variaciones y ramificaciones, cometieron sus errores, unos más graves que otros, hasta la extensión de probablemente olvidarse de que partieron desde un mismo punto de origen: el de beneficiar a la humanidad. Y es que a partir de esa premisa, esa comprensión de ambos lados, es posible declarar que al momento de elegir un lado del espectro no necesariamente significa el rechazo completo del “opuesto”. En efecto, lo que es necesario considerar al momento de inspirarse de una ideología es que no se debe explorar lo positivo de un lado y el negativo del otro solamente, lo cual inevitablemente conlleva a defender lo injusto y rechazar lo útil, porque si se indaga profundamente, ambos extremos del espectro no están “incorrectas”, más se complementan por sus objetivos de mejorar la sociedad, que se oponen por sus prácticas de cómo conseguirlos. Es por eso que está la necesidad de construir el puente diplomático que devuelva una mutua reconciliación de estas, que combata la fragmentación y/o polarización, de esta manera, juntos es posible diseñar los bloques fundamentales para un mejor y pacífico mundo de naciones unidas de trasfondo, pues será beneficioso que aprendan entre sí, en vez de obstaculizarse entre sí, para de esta manera enfrentar el aceleradamente cambiante comunidad globalizada que propone nuevos desafíos socio-políticos y económicos.

En definitiva, volviendo a la interrogante original, no es necesario responder “centrista”, sino un pragmático cuyo espectro ideológico es maleable, y accede a toda idea que lleve de la mano a una sociedad a la prosperidad. Pues finalmente, habrá un sin número de teorías sobre cómo gobernar, organizar, proponer, entre otros (y otras más por aparecer), pero hay que emplear con la que más funciona, ya que no importa si el gato es negro o blanco, con tal que atrape el ratón (que por su parte evoluciona consecuentemente), es un buen gato.