Could the skills learned in high school speech and debate be part of the solution to the culture’s ideological conflict and political division? I believe the answer is yes. Participating in debate is the best way to learn one crucial skill that is incredibly needed and often overlooked. Debate requires students to fairly evaluate views that they don’t hold…
During my time taking part in political canvassing and street outreach with pro-life organizations, I have learned that many people struggle to do this. I’ve had hundreds of interactions with strangers centered around one of the most controversial topics– abortion. Sometimes people on the pro-choice side of the issue are eager to explain to me why they disagree with my stance against abortion. I recently spoke with a man who shared that he was concerned about the financial and social issues that women with unplanned pregnancies often face. He argued that pro-life activists like me should do more to help those people, rather than advocating for legislation against abortion. This argument made it clear to me that he was uninformed about what my position and the position of the pro-life movement as a whole, actually is. So I told him that I agree, women with unplanned pregnancies should receive help. In fact, there are numerous organizations dedicated to this, and they are run by people who are pro-life. This man knew that he and I disagreed on something, but he didn’t seem to understand what we disagreed on. If he had understood my position, he might have made an argument about whether or not abortion is morally wrong or whether or not it should be legal. His actual point, that we should do more to help women, did not address my position at all! In fact we agreed. This experience is all too common. People often assume that they know what I believe and why I believe it before I can tell them. Many people have wrong ideas about what their political and ideological opponents actually think. With any difference of opinion, no matter the issue, people simply don’t know how to handle disagreement. It’s not always that they are stupid or uncaring; they haven’t been taught the skill of argumentation.
In A Rulebook for Arguments, philosopher Anthony Weston urges readers, “Do not make your argument look good by mocking or distorting the other side. Generally, people advocate a position for serious and sincere reasons. Try to figure out their view—try to get it right—even if you disagree entirely. A person who questions a new technology is not in favor of ‘going back to the caves,’ for example, and a person who believes in evolution is not claiming that her grandma was a monkey. If you can’t imagine how anyone could hold the view you are attacking, you just don’t understand it yet.” Weston shows how important it is to take time to understand a view before criticizing it. One of the most frustrating experiences is to see one of your beliefs carelessly dismissed by a meaningless slogan or wildly misrepresented in an internet post. It’s not that everyone has bad intentions. Some people are unaware of their lack of understanding. To “strawman” an opponent’s argument is to commit a logical fallacy by characterizing a position you do not hold as more extreme or unreasonable than it actually is. Conversely, to “steelman” an argument requires that you understand a view that you disagree with, well enough that you can explain it accurately and recognize which arguments for that view are strongest (although ultimately unconvincing.) This doesn’t come naturally to most people. It’s a skill that needs to be developed.
Lincoln Douglas and Team Policy debate both require students to evaluate a resolution from all angles and carefully consider arguments that they don’t agree with. First, in order to effectively defend your position you must anticipate what your opponent will argue. This means thinking about and dissecting the strongest arguments for the other side. Persuasion in debate requires an understanding of what your opponent is actually saying. If your judge perceives that you have addressed a weakened or simplistic version of their argument instead of their actual argument, you won’t win the round. Second, debate requires students to make arguments for positions they don’t agree with. You can’t be in full agreement with both sides of a resolution. Eventually you will be forced to argue a position you don’t actually hold. For most people there is almost no other context in life where this is expected of them. Debate is one of the only ways to practice this skill. However, being able to argue for positions you disagree with prepares you to navigate conversations in the real world.
Persuasion is complicated. You can’t always present a logical argument against someone’s sincere belief and expect them to be convinced. Sometimes it’s necessary to demonstrate that you recognize the merit in another person’s argument and sympathize with their concerns, despite being ultimately unconvinced of their position. If you can show this to a person you are conversing with, they will be more open to hearing your reasoning. In debate, your objective is to persuade a judge who is not a participant in the conversation. In real life, your objective may be to persuade the person you are talking with. Each form of persuasion requires a different approach, but similar and related skills. If you are a parent or student who is on the fence about debate, consider giving it a try. Cultural and political change starts with persuading individual people. Debate is the best way to equip yourself to make a lasting impact on those around you.
Liliana is an NCFCA speech and debate alumn. She presently attends Grove City College in Pennsylvania pursuing her degree in communication arts. Liliana also serves as president of the GCC Life Advocates club and campus ambassador for SBA Pro-Life America.