Debates

The fact that debates have become a spectator sport for some is a travesty. In the age of social media and political polarization, it has become a mere caricature of intellectual discourse; from the absurd pantomime of the past presidential debates or the average high school debating competition, what was originally intended to be a means of advancing our collective intelligence as a society is instead now a means of degrading it. 

Lest we forget that there is solely one purpose for a debate—the advancement of ideas. It is an opportunity for two individuals to learn from each other. 

In an intellectually honest debate, there are no winners or losers. There is no applause. There is no emotion. 

There are facts and evidence. There is logic and reasoning. 

Nothing else. 

We cannot so easily let our antagonistic primal instincts distract us from what matters.

But what we most need to recognize is that the debate is as much about what we disagree on as it is what we agree on. Any productive debate consists of participants that not only disagree on the topic of the debate, but agree on the purpose of the debate itself; it is only when we can agree about what it means to create a better world—when we can agree about the value of pursuing a greater truth—that we can actually practically make use of all this exchange of knowledge. If we can’t agree on what all this is even for, it merely devolves into raucous, senseless banter or, better yet, glorified intellectual masturbation.