A new way to debate
10/07/16 05:18
One of the podcasts I enjoy is Intelligence Squared: The World of Debate. The programs started in England and now there are spin offs in many countries, including the United States. I often listen to the English version because they focus a bit more on international issues. The basic format is to posit a basic resolution, gather a panel of experts, and conduct a respectful debate with opening arguments, rebuttals and audience questions. The audience is polled on the issue as they arrive and after the formal statement are made, the audience is polled once again. Usually there are a sizable percentage of audience members who are undecided at the beginning of the debate and it is interesting to see how many make up their mind during the debate. What I appreciate about the program is that the debaters show respect for one another and genuinely listen to the arguments of the other side.
We have gotten used to a different kind of debate of political issues here in the United States. Candidate debates are far different. In general candidates come to the debates with prepared talking points and specific attacks on their opponents. They present themselves and their point of view without respect for the questions answered and generally without careful listening to their opponent. Points of logic are rarely conceded and the focus is on “winning.” The point is to get the audience, which in general means the wider television audience rather than the people actually present with the debaters, to choose sides.
I’m interested in more nuanced conversations. There is far too much of choosing sides in our public conversations. At times it seems as if no one is willing to change their opinion and no one is looking for the positive contributions of the other side. I, however, often find it difficult to choose sides. I think there are more than two perspectives on most important issues. I am interested listening to viewpoints that are different than my own. I can be persuaded to change my mind by a well reasoned argument.
There is little doubt that the times in which we live feel precarious to us. Large scale migrations of people, global climate change and an upsurge of religious fundamentalism have left many nervous about the future. The rise of China, the re-emergence of Iran, the posturing of Russia and the volatility of the Middle East all hold potential for incredible violence and an uncertainty about the future of our world.
The world has known the rise of modern democracies and a focus on western style democracy for nearly half a millennium. Those of us who live in democracies are very comfortable with our form of government and believe in its potential to raise the prospects of people everywhere. We squirm with the rise of other forms of government and systems that are less democratic. Some pundits have even posited that in the ebb and flow of history we may be entering a phase of less democracy in the world. This leaves us nervous and worried about international affairs and about the role of our country in shaping the future.
In these uncertain times there may be some comfort in choosing sides and clearly labeling an enemy. There are many of us, however, who are uncomfortable with such a simplistic view of these complex issues and very nervous of “us” and “them” ways of thinking.
A clear example of this is our response to the tragic shootings of police officers in Dallas. I have clear sympathies for the families of the victims. As a sheriff’s chaplain, I have a great deal of compassion for the hard work, quality training, and excellent judgement of law enforcement officers. Their self sacrifice in order to provide for the public good is a shining example of what is best about human beings. The thought of a sniper systematically killing offices is sickening and repulsive. The tragedy for the families of these officers is unspeakable. My prayers and my heart goes out to them.
At the same time, I have sympathies for the protesters who gathered to speak out against systematic racism in our legal system. The high profile deaths of people of color at the hands of police officers require careful investigation and more needs to be done to protect innocent victims. The over reaction of some law enforcement officers has led to unnecessary deaths and the disproportionate number of victims who are African-American is not easily explained. Peaceful protest is one way to address systematic racism and to work for change.
I realize that the lone shooter was not in line with the organizers of the protest. I understand that the leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement are as appalled at the shootings as are those who disagree with them.
In sort, I refuse to take sides.
Even if I were to take sides, I refuse to employ the tactics of contemporary debate. Jesus instructed us: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, . . .”
Loving my enemies means being intentional about looking for the good in those with whom I disagree. It means understanding their beliefs and convictions well enough to identify the qualities and aspects of their lives that are worthy of love and compassion. It means listening carefully enough to know who they are and what they are about.
But there is more. I believe that loving our enemies means being willing to show our own vulnerabilities. It means being honest with our own doubts. The traditional debater’s stance of not showing your weakness and pursuing an attack at all times may be useful for verbal combat, but it does not open us to loving our opponents.
In these uncertain times learning to love our enemies and understand the basic humanity of those with whom we disagree is critical. And you don’t get there by choosing sides.
Our culture needs a new way of debating and a revival of respect for the art of listening. It starts by renewing our commitment to love.
We have gotten used to a different kind of debate of political issues here in the United States. Candidate debates are far different. In general candidates come to the debates with prepared talking points and specific attacks on their opponents. They present themselves and their point of view without respect for the questions answered and generally without careful listening to their opponent. Points of logic are rarely conceded and the focus is on “winning.” The point is to get the audience, which in general means the wider television audience rather than the people actually present with the debaters, to choose sides.
I’m interested in more nuanced conversations. There is far too much of choosing sides in our public conversations. At times it seems as if no one is willing to change their opinion and no one is looking for the positive contributions of the other side. I, however, often find it difficult to choose sides. I think there are more than two perspectives on most important issues. I am interested listening to viewpoints that are different than my own. I can be persuaded to change my mind by a well reasoned argument.
There is little doubt that the times in which we live feel precarious to us. Large scale migrations of people, global climate change and an upsurge of religious fundamentalism have left many nervous about the future. The rise of China, the re-emergence of Iran, the posturing of Russia and the volatility of the Middle East all hold potential for incredible violence and an uncertainty about the future of our world.
The world has known the rise of modern democracies and a focus on western style democracy for nearly half a millennium. Those of us who live in democracies are very comfortable with our form of government and believe in its potential to raise the prospects of people everywhere. We squirm with the rise of other forms of government and systems that are less democratic. Some pundits have even posited that in the ebb and flow of history we may be entering a phase of less democracy in the world. This leaves us nervous and worried about international affairs and about the role of our country in shaping the future.
In these uncertain times there may be some comfort in choosing sides and clearly labeling an enemy. There are many of us, however, who are uncomfortable with such a simplistic view of these complex issues and very nervous of “us” and “them” ways of thinking.
A clear example of this is our response to the tragic shootings of police officers in Dallas. I have clear sympathies for the families of the victims. As a sheriff’s chaplain, I have a great deal of compassion for the hard work, quality training, and excellent judgement of law enforcement officers. Their self sacrifice in order to provide for the public good is a shining example of what is best about human beings. The thought of a sniper systematically killing offices is sickening and repulsive. The tragedy for the families of these officers is unspeakable. My prayers and my heart goes out to them.
At the same time, I have sympathies for the protesters who gathered to speak out against systematic racism in our legal system. The high profile deaths of people of color at the hands of police officers require careful investigation and more needs to be done to protect innocent victims. The over reaction of some law enforcement officers has led to unnecessary deaths and the disproportionate number of victims who are African-American is not easily explained. Peaceful protest is one way to address systematic racism and to work for change.
I realize that the lone shooter was not in line with the organizers of the protest. I understand that the leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement are as appalled at the shootings as are those who disagree with them.
In sort, I refuse to take sides.
Even if I were to take sides, I refuse to employ the tactics of contemporary debate. Jesus instructed us: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, . . .”
Loving my enemies means being intentional about looking for the good in those with whom I disagree. It means understanding their beliefs and convictions well enough to identify the qualities and aspects of their lives that are worthy of love and compassion. It means listening carefully enough to know who they are and what they are about.
But there is more. I believe that loving our enemies means being willing to show our own vulnerabilities. It means being honest with our own doubts. The traditional debater’s stance of not showing your weakness and pursuing an attack at all times may be useful for verbal combat, but it does not open us to loving our opponents.
In these uncertain times learning to love our enemies and understand the basic humanity of those with whom we disagree is critical. And you don’t get there by choosing sides.
Our culture needs a new way of debating and a revival of respect for the art of listening. It starts by renewing our commitment to love.