Let’s start with a little personal narrative, as that might make this post more resonant for some: Probably my main extracurricular activity in high school was debate. I went to a fancy private school in New York City, and I was part of Junior Statesmen of America (JSA). I did it in 9th grade and was pretty good at it, then I think some of us got busted early 10th grade for drinking on a trip, so I got suspended from it for a bit … came back in 11th grade and was mowing down fools in debates for about six months. Made some good friends through it at other high schools around the Northeast, and then in 12th grade a lot of my non-in-my-own-HS friends were JSA people. In short, it was a big deal for me most of ages 15 to 18, give or take.
I would not say I was a “nuanced” debater and anyone that knew me in that time frame would agree, I bet. I was pretty funny at points and I understand the 35,000-foot level of issues, but not always all the individual elements. I created this character called “Little Timmy” who was always being wronged by things like gun control, abortion, single moms, drugs in schools, etc. I got a lot of wins with Little Timmy because I painted this whole narrative for the audience before I got to my real point. I probably could have been a politician at 16, except I already had some skeletons in my closet by then (and have gotten a few more in the intervening 22 years).
Some of my JSA peeps went on and had actual political (and mostly legal) careers doing big stuff with big, impressive titles, salaries, and companies. They were all inclined to a success mindset beforehand, probably, because mostly this was rich white kids debating each other, but I’d like to think the JSA era prepared them for tougher conversations and back-and-forths of adulthood. I think a bunch of them would admit that, probably. (Because relationships change over time, I cannot say I actively talk to a lot of people I debated abortion with at 15.)
Now we come to the core question: Has debate declined over time? And does that mirror a broader problem in American/global society?
Caveat: I will throw some research into this post, but some of it is also “gut feel,” so I apologize for that in advance. I’ll begin with the research elements, though.
Is debate declining in high schools?
There are a few arguments for “yes,” including this article, the original “Coddling of the American Mind” article, this New Republic article on the decline of debate on college campuses, and this from Impakter.
Why would debate be in decline?
Couple of different reasons I could give you, broadly:
- The Internet: There is no real need to “debate” anything when most people have Google in their pocket. Sports in bars is the greatest example at a low level. You’re in a bar and some dude is like “Who has hit over .370 since Ted Williams hit .400?” 15-20 years ago, people would go back and forth and debate that, guess, try to use logic, remember moments of their fandom. Now some dude at the bar pulls out Google, just says the answer, and it’s over. Is that the same as a HS debate? No. But it requires less conversational back-and-forth, and that’s the broader issue.
- National narratives and Trump: You seemingly “win” debates these days by shitting all over your opponent, or giving him a funny nickname or saying “Lock her up!” or whatever. There is very little nuance to how you are supposedly going to “win” these days. Issues? Facts? Actual knowledge? Those seem to be out the window.
- How schools are assessed: A lot of it is test scores, obviously. While I would argue debate prepares you as a student in many disciplines and helps you with reading comprehension and other testable skills, a lot of times “extra” programs like debate are killed because of funding and because they don’t directly relate to better test scores, at least not in the spreadsheets anyone is looking at.
- Social Media: Easy to blame everything on this, for sure, but on social a debate is usually “Here’s a comment, here’s a reaction, here’s a hot take, here’s me insulting you, here’s a GIF, here’s the end of it.” It’s not nuanced or back-and-forth usually, although admittedly I have seen back-and-forth threads more than people often want to admit. They work well on Facebook (ha!) but on other platforms it’s harder. Obviously no one debates jack shit on LinkedIn because they’re scared of what hiring managers might think.
How does this tie to, say, work?
It ties deeply to work, adulthood, relationships, etc. Everything is about conversational agility, I’d argue. Most fights within relationships are what my man Peter calls “goalpost-moving” fights, where you start on one topic and you’re really fighting about a second topic, and the whole thing is a big debate. You need to know how to navigate those, and if you can’t, it’s hard to have relationships. (I would know.)
Work is mostly about control and relevance, with a dash of productivity and self-awareness here and there. You will consistently encounter people with whom you disagree. You think another strategy is better, a pivot is better, etc. You need to be able to debate and argue the merits of your side in that context. What usually happens? A bludgeon comes down and hierarchy wins. That’s not at all the same as debate, but we get that twisted a lot at work.
Most of your life is about “Hey, I have this list of things to do, and these ideas about what to do next in my day, week, and life.” And then, various people come along — spouses, recruiters, bosses, children, friends, guys at the gym — who disagree with something you’re trying to say or do. You need to be able to hold your position logically. That is, essentially, debate.
So if it’s eroding at the basic levels where it’s taught, do you see how this might become a problem?
What could we do?
Couple of different things, by my count:
- Teach it more in schools
- When we teach it, make students actually do a one-pager of research on their side and turn that into bullet points and “zingers” to incorporate when they actually debate
- Better parenting — fight in front of your kids to model what arguments/debates look like; too many parents do this behind closed doors. IMHO, the only thing parents should do behind closed doors is fuck. Letting your kids watch that is illegal and gross. But … letting your kids watch you fight is fine, if there’s an air of respectability and nuance to the debate you’re having.
- Keep drilling the idea that it’s not about “winning” so much as being prepared, knowing facts, and having a respectful conversation.
- Encourage active listening to the other side of a discussion. Listening in a debate is probably more important than your talking points, but we seem to have gotten away from that.
What’s your take? Has debate declined? And if so, what now?
This is a topic that’s long fascinated me. I’m not sure whether I believe that debate skills have declined over time or whether we were never really good at debate in the aggregate but pine for a past time in which we believe ourselves to have been better debaters. The latter belief limits us from actually improving on our conversational skills, as we revert to lamenting our lost values rather than devoting our energies to developing as better debaters and conversationalists.
One aspect of in-person debates I’ve observed over the years is that the people involved in a debate often become too personally enmeshed in the point they are debating (myself included). While it’s true that many matters worth debating are a matter of life and death, a productive conversation doesn’t usually consist of people becoming so emotionally involved in a point of view that they intentionally shut themselves off to another’s perspective rather than working through it to show its flaws or highlight its validities. I’m a fan of Hegel’s dialectic (thesis/antithesis = synthesis) and try to utilize that dynamic whenever I’m discussing a point with someone (i.e. I want to see where our points of agreement may be and build consensus off of that while understanding that we will need to agree to disagree on some points). I’ll admit that there have been plenty of times I’ve argued a point too vehemently simply because I wanted to win, show I held what I deemed to be the superior perspective, or became too attached to what I deemed to be the vacuous nature of my opponent’s viewpoint to the degree that I had to “demolish it”. I’m coming to terms with these approaches serving to do nothing but alienate myself, damage relationships, and attract those who have a fascination with fighting.
I do believe that the way people interact on the Internet is often pretty flawed. I’ve observed some unique attributes/flaws of Internet interaction that seem distinct from the attributes/flaws of in-person interaction/debate. Absent nonverbal cues and the empathy that seem to arise from sharing a physical space with someone, online debates often seem to involve people showing off their rhetorical or technical skills in order to (borrowing your term) bludgeon others in to submission or indifference. People in these situations don’t seem interested in building relationships or agreeing to disagree and acknowledging that others have different core values, they seem to want to berate others in to agreement or leverage compliance by instigating the crowd’s reaction against their interlocutor. I’m not sure these are effective techniques.
Nathan J. Robinson of Current Affairs magazine posted a thoughtful piece on how public debates are really more for spectacle than winning people over. To an extent, I agree. I can be swayed by a convincing argument I read online, but are those arguments already those I am predisposed to enjoying given my current views at the time? I.e. are they simply more articulate ways of expressing ideas I already hold dear? It’s this point that gives me pause about the ultimate value of debate in changing public opinion (or, how we envision the ideal public debate to unfold). Our understanding of human psychology has evolved to the extent that we don’t seem to be objective arbiters of truth who are “blank slates” and who carefully, emotionlessly examine the ins and outs of each “rationally presented” viewpoint. We are messy, intricate beings with a myriad of motivations who make arguments that are partly rooted in logic/reason and partly rooted in emotion. I personally believe that the ideal of the debate as involving two stoic philosophers debating competing ideals logically is kind of silly (and, when it does on rare occasion happen, is about as fun as watching grass grow). I think we should acknowledge this and use it to evolve our understanding of the purpose and nature of a debate, as it’s likely many of us are utilizing an outdated definition of what it means to engage in debate and discussion.
I think that in order to have an effective debate, one should examine their intent before engaging another/others. Do I want to win? Do I want to be understood? Am I looking to have a debate or a conversation? If the former, am I willing to forgo building a relationship with my interlocutor in the hopes that I’ll win over more people to my side? If the latter, am I respectfully acknowledging the person I’m interacting with’s viewpoints whilst clearly stating my own, understanding that agreeing to disagree is a powerful tool that should be used more often?
I should add that I think establishing debate/discussion standards and having a moderator to ensure those standards are being adhered to is crucial. Even if it is irritating to do this for every debate it is a way to help ensure the discussion stays on track and adheres to a mutually agreed upon standard. In many cases these standards seem to be assumed when in fact each and every debate has differing parameters and protocols.
I think what you see often in online debates is two or more people at odds with each other who don’t take the time to establish baseline discussion standards and are conversing with what are often wildly different ideas of what a debate should be, hence why people often sense that online debates are pointless.