Debate’s Ripple Effect on Public Discourse
Due to the dramatic rise of political polarization and increasing use of social media, modern-day political discourse is shifting from our traditional understandings of debate. For the most part, it has become overwhelming negative, less respectful, less fact-based, and less substantive than ever before. Based on polling, it is abundantly clear that an overwhelming majority of the public holds a harsh judgement on engagement between political leaders and a growing distaste in watching the once-beloved presidential debates. Particularly on social media, aggressive, hostile behavior and language quickly emerge while users spend little time actively considering or engaging the other perspective. These trends are largely exacerbated by echochambers, an environment frequently created on social media where users only encounter beliefs and opinions that coincide with, support, or are compatible with their already-held beliefs. Meanwhile, voices that have historically offered reason find themselves lost in the heavy political polarization and binary nature of modern-day politics.
These trends are also apparent in people’s everyday lives. A majority of Americans feel it is increasingly difficult, frustrating, or stressful to talk about politics with their own friends, colleagues, and even family. Many fear igniting disagreements about contentious political topics (climate change, immigration, etc.) and are uncomfortable with facing the subsequent interpersonal conflicts. Instead, many prefer to avoid the topic entirely, turning to topics that are traditionally viewed as “lighthearted”, like sports or even the weather. However, by extension, this perpetrates a cycle in which healthy, substantive, and proper discourse becomes rare and harder to access.
In an ideal world, policy discussions should unite people and encourage them to view problems as chances for group understanding and problem-solving rather than as arguments to be won. In order to encourage healthy political discourse once more, it is important to emphasize some basic principles that should be held throughout the course of a debate. Primarily, all participating members of a debate (debaters, judges, moderators, and audience members) should observe civility, empathy, active listening, and focus on the critical thinking and logic of the arguments themselves. Luckily, the activity of forensics teaches young middle and high school students these skills. As such, while it is often considered an exercise in academic or competitive circumstances, the skill to debate effectively has the transformative power to affect discourse outside of its formal boundaries. This ability to have "spillover" effects into larger social discussions emphasizes debate's function as a stimulus for meaningful discourse. Debate principles may elevate and enrich policy discussions, ordinary interactions, and media narratives. Debate fosters the development of critical, educated, and—above all—constructive discourse skills, attitudes, and understandings that have far-reaching consequences.
Critical Thinking: The fundamental components of debate, such as interacting with a range of viewpoints, formulating persuasive arguments, and analyzing evidence critically, provide a basis for individuals to participate in public discourse with an increased sense of consciousness. In a world where various pieces of information and disinformation are abundant and easy to access, the capacity to recognize reliable sources, evaluate arguments rationally, and spot biases is essential. Since debaters are taught to comprehend complicated topics and find the most high-quality evidence to produce clear arguments, debaters may apply their critical thinking abilities to help create a more discerning and informed public.
Civility & Moderation: The debate round is a setting that is civilized and moderated. Most debate rounds are overseen by a judge, viewed by an audience, and all debaters are instructed to not interrupt one another during speeches. To advocate for their side or perspective, each debater is permitted to speak for multiple minutes on end — and uninterrupted. In addition, during rebuttal and later speeches of the debate round, debaters are forced to engage with the other side respectfully. In the context of the round, debaters are rewarded for attacking the opposing side based on their understanding of the argument’s logic and evidence rather than character. By utilizing these common practices, debaters consistently set a high standard for civility, transparency, and a compassionate culture of discourse — even in the face of strong disagreement. By fostering such an atmosphere, debating simultaneously promotes an appreciation for the expressive power of language itself and emphasizes the significance of presenting ideas in a constructive rather than polarizing manner. This move toward empathy has the potential to have a wide range of effects, including improving public conversation's inclusion and affecting the style and subject matter of media coverage.
Collaboration: A handful of traditional debate events, including Public Forum and World Schools Debate, are team-based. In these events, multiple students — typically somewhere between 2 and 5 — work collaboratively to advocate for their side of the topic. Each student is assigned to deliver certain speeches of the debate round, and teams are able to use prep time to discuss and coordinate a collective strategy and round vision.
In conclusion, debate is much more than just an intellectual activity; it's a key to opening the door to more sophisticated discourse. Debate gives people the skills they need to enhance discussions, by fostering critical thinking, respect, sensitivity, and an appreciation for diversity. These principles have the power to change the way we think, communicate, and eventually coexist.
Written by Imad Shaikh from Houston, Texas. Imad was a program management intern in Winter 2024 at Eloquence Academy.
