I have been doing debate as a sport for almost five years. Before I hear all of your voices saying, “Quinn, debate isn’t a sport!,” I want to say: it totally is. What is a sport other than an activity where people compete against each other for the entertainment of themselves and others?*
I rest my case.
Speaking of cases, debate is an amazing sport.** I can’t think of another sport that teaches the same critical thinking, quick thinking, and public speaking skills. Not to mention the knowledge of current events and history you accumulate over time as a debater. I would by no means be the same person I am today if I did not do debate. I would probably be less annoying and snarky. But I would also know a lot less about the world I lived in.
I could go on for a while about everything debate has taught me, but what I want to focus on today is what I think is the most important thing I have learned from debate.
Debate sucks.
Now of course, that is a hyperbolic statement, but I’ve learned from debate that starting your arguments with attention-grabbing hooks is a good practice.
What I mean when I say “debate sucks” is that debate sucks when you’re trying to change someone’s mind. Debate makes for amazing competitions, but that’s where it should mostly stay.
There is this perception among the general public – especially among people who believe in the democratic system – that if only everyone could have civil debates with one another that we would have a perfect society. People think that the best way to convince someone of a belief is by debating them and proving them wrong. When I say people, I also include myself under that umbrella. For a long time, I had this idea stuck in my head that the ideologies of the people I watched in the news and who I listened to on social media would crumble under the overwhelming power of my facts and logic.
I wish we lived in a world where all of that was true, but we unfortunately do not. Strangely, and quite annoyingly, rather than changing their minds when losing an argument, people tend to solidify their own beliefs and push back instead. As put eloquently by Dale Carnegie, “A man convinced against his will/ Is of the same opinion still.”***
Debate fundamentally yearns for you to tear down your opponent. It wants you to attack and demolish everything anyone says. Debate is about shooting your opponent’s argument full of holes and demonstrating to them how much water leaks out afterwards. Naturally, when facing an attack, people try to defend themselves. It doesn’t really matter if they’re right, because they’re already implicitly biased towards their own opinions.
Stanford researchers conducted an experiment where students who were pro- and anti-capital punishment were gathered and then given two studies. One of the studies had statistics endorsing capital punishment while the other included statistics in opposition. The students in favor of capital punishment reported that the paper in favor of it seemed more credible while the other was unconvincing and questionable. The students against capital punishment did the opposite.
However, characteristically, the researchers were being sneaky.**** Both of the statistics in the studies were completely fabricated. Nevertheless, not only did neither group of students change their thinking, but they actually came out of the study more strongly convinced of their own beliefs. It ultimately didn’t matter what the studies actually said, it just mattered that their content agreed with the students.
So if the presentation of facts and statistics doesn’t change people’s minds, we must search for another method. Unfortunately for us, debate continues to be unhelpful in this area. Debating with the intent of trying to change someone’s mind is not only pointless and oftentimes counterproductive, but also replaces a much better way of changing minds: empathy.
The only person who can actually change your mind is yourself. So if you are attempting to get someone else’s mind to change, you should try to help guide them to changing their mind voluntarily rather than “DESTROYING them with FACTS and LOGIC.”*****
Adam Grant, an organizational psychology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests an alternative to debate. His approach focuses instead on recognizing, acknowledging, and validating the views of your conversation partner while simultaneously informing them and pointing out the discrepancies between their opinions and their desired behaviors.
Empathy would make a terrible strategy in a debate competition, but proves quite successful in the real world. Treating the opinions of others with nuance and understanding encourages them to do the same for yours.
Maybe it sounds cliché, but if your end goal is an idyllic society where everyone agrees on the most logical and empirical beliefs, the path there is empathy.
And hey – if you don’t agree, feel free to debate with me. I won’t change my mind.
Footnotes:
* Ignore the whole “physical exertion” and “movement based” parts of the definition.
** If you got that transition, you are a debate nerd.
*** While also somewhat male-normatively.
**** You gotta watch out for those Stanford researchers.
***** I won’t say who I’m quoting here, but you probably know.
Bibliography:
Kolbert, Elizabeth. “Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds.” The New Yorker, Advance Magazine Publishers, 20 Feb. 2017, www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds.
Hallquist, Chris. “According to Dale Carnegie, You Can’t Win an Argument-and He Has a Point.” LessWrong, 30 Nov. 2013, www.lesswrong.com/posts/HxWdXMqoQtjDhhNGA/according-to-dale-carnegie-you-can-t-win-an-argument-and-he.
Grant, Adam. “The Science of Reasoning with Unreasonable People.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 31 Jan. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/01/31/opinion/change-someones-mind.html.
Carnegie, Dale. “You Can’t Win an Argument.” How to Win Friends and Influence People, Simon & Schuster, New York Etc., 1981.
wow such a convincing article and i love the image