Why debate things? Why not just agree to disagree, and live and let live?
Well, to settle this question, we must first decide what the purpose of debate is; but to decide what the purpose of debate is, we must discover what a debate is. Consider, then, the general structure of a debate: two opposing parties assert mutually contradictory theses, and then each proceeds to question the truth of the other's claim.
Thus, we see that a debate requires two mutually contradictory propositions, and each party attempts to establish his chosen claim as true. Recall that a proposition is a statement which is either true or false, but not both. To demonstrate a claim true, the person arguing for that claim must present sufficient conditions which can then be shown true. Keep in mind that a sufficient condition for a given claim is a statement the truth of which implies that claim.
So, each side in a debate must show that his claim is true, which will, since the two claims are mutually contradictory, force the opponent's claim to be false. Therefore, the purpose of arguing is to discover the truth about the pair of claims in question.
Since the purpose of arguing is to discover the truth, it behooves participants in a debate to enter -áwith the intention of discovering the truth, not of winning at the expense of dishonesty; however, it also requires the participants to enter the debate with an uncompromising attitude, so that all possible avenues of inquiry are fulfilled.
In essence, in a debate, one should leave no stone unturned, and once all the stones have been flipped, accept the outcome as the truth.
This brings me to my main point: Debate, as the search for truth, is not an activity which should be avoided, feared, and castigated; it is an activity which the populace should embrace and grow to know.
Why have we given ourselves freedom of speech if we are not going to utilize it to pursue the truth?
I suspect many people have little or no experience thinking critically and rationally; critical thinking skills are paramount in a debate - bear in mind that to discover the truth in a debate, the winning side must see the opposing argument critically enough to dismantle it, and the losing side must see his own argument rationally enough to conclude it is flawed and concede honestly. People are unable to think critically. They fear debate, fear losing, and are unable to swallow their pride enough to note that a man who honestly concedes a debate possesses far more integrity than a man who is too arrogant to be honest with himself and admit he's wrong.
The resurgence of religious fundamentalism and the inability of people to critically evaluate politicians and political issues, stands as testimony that the refusal to debate honestly is a great problem in the United States today. The solution is not only to educate children in how to think rationally and critically, but also to demand that political dialogue be elevated beyond the current mudslinging, irrelevant ad hominems, tu quoques, red herrings, question-begging and emphatic statements of fact with no sufficient conditions. It should be taken to a level where if a politician realizes he's wrong, he concedes the argument - to a level where critical thinking is valued more than fanatic pronouncements of fact - to a level where we the people are not forced to bear the insult of being treated as mindless sheep, where we are not forced to bear the humiliation of being unable to critically evaluate that which we hear.
Write to Neal at necoleman@bsu.edu
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
