The Problem with Debates

some thoughts on truth-seeking with fellow humans

In a recent post called Church as a Zero-Sum Game, we talked about how many of us were trained, explicitly or implicitly, to view religion and politics as debate.

Church as a Zero-Sum Game

What was meant to be for community is instead turned into dualistic, and often violent, competition between sworn enemies.

As someone raised within a religious tradition that viewed religion as debate, I’ve spent much of my life searching for truth in the hopes of defeating religious error. As part of this training, I read and watched dozens of debates. These weren't evening news, three people talking over each other debates, and they weren’t the skimpy, one-minute-a-round debates that we think of during election cycles.

These debates were multi-night events with several twenty to thirty minute speeches a night. The participants had a clear proposition, charts, and a debate team. There was no talking over each other, and the standards of speech were high.

Since 2015, I’ve attended a few debates as a spectator and as part of a team. I’ve never been the one to call for the charts, drop witty one-liners, or claim victory over my opponent, but I’ve hastily scribbled down arguments, summarized them, and came up with key talking points for the speaker. It’s actually a lot of fun.

And that might be part of the problem—the fun.

Is debate for sport, or is it for mutual truth-seeking?

And when it does have these more noble intentions, is it the most effective form of truth-seeking, or does it still have its downsides?

The Winner Versus the Loser

If you watch one of those one-night YouTube debates that has a handful of speeches, cross-examination, and questions from the audience, then you are probably familiar with the phenomenon of both sides claiming absolute victory. This begs the question: how does one determine a winner or loser in a debate?

But in answering this question, we need to be aware of a sad fact about debates: just because someone wins a debate doesn’t mean their position is true. Let’s play with this idea for a bit.

More than Meets the Eye

Okay, so the most obvious thing to me is that most subjects just can’t be explored in a few hours on YouTube or even across a multi-night debate. It’s just impossible to test all the lines of inquiry to see their validity and implications. Sure, you can bust out a few syllogisms and name a logical fallacy or two, but when seeking truth, everyone is bound to be wrong on some detail, and so a truth-seeking debate would allow for recantations, adjustments, and redeliveries.

So even if it seems like there is a clear winner in a debate, it could just be that he won the surface-level discussion while any discussion at a deeper level would reveal the other proposition to be true or at least closer to the truth.

The Competency Dilemma

One of the fundamental flaws with debates is that it assumes the competency of the participants.

If the guy in the affirmative “wins,” it may not be because his proposition is true; the other guy may just suck at debating. And the guy who “loses” may actually be on the “right” side and just failed to properly defend the position, point out flaws in the opposition, or follow the rules of the debate.

A well-researched, charismatic speaker who holds an objectively false proposition will win a debate against a novice who stumbles over his words.

The Professional Debater

This brings me to another point I have called “the professional debater.” But this is a bit of a misnomer because someone who is, what I call, a professional debater may have never debated before and would quickly denounce this charge in a very professional way.

All I mean by this is that the person is a bit of a politician. They have the gift of gab. They can drop a witty remark in lieu of an actual argument. They can deflect a legitimate question with the appearance of competence.

Sometimes this person may “shotgun” fifteen different arguments two minutes before the end of a speech, sit back in his chair without taking notes on the other fellow’s response, then get back up and claim, “Well this guy didn’t answer 75% of my material. What a chump.”

These tricks don’t just show up in debates, though. Someone rooted in legalism, like myself, can spin something so quickly and forcefully that it has the appearance of truth, is pleasing to my side of the audience, and is more memorable than a well-reasoned, technical argument.

They’re Both Wrong

Again, someone might not win a debate because the proposition is true; they might just be good at debating.

And both parties might be wrong.

Now, if the propositions both state two sides of one issue, it might be hard to see how they both could be wrong. Let me offer an example.

“The Scriptures teach that one is saved at the point of water baptism.”

The other proposition would read something like

“The Scriptures teach that one is saved at the point of faith prior to water baptism.”

Both participants would sign these propositions indicating that they affirm one and deny the other. In their respective speeches, each person in the affirmative would be careful to define the terms:

“By ‘Scriptures,’ I mean the sixty-six books of the Bible that are inspired by God, infallible, and inerrant. By ‘teach,’ I mean impart knowledge; that is, the Scriptures are designed to confer the truth stated in the proposition…etc. etc.”

After defining the proposition like this and engaging in the debates, it’s hard to see how both could be wrong.

And here’s the problem with debates: it often frames two opposing propositions as if they are mutually exclusive or universal. Could it be that God saves some people one way and others another way? Could salvation be a process and not like a light switch? Maybe salvation is at the point of confession, repentance, or maybe everyone is saved by default?

So even if there seems to be a clear winner, all that may be demonstrated is that one position is more reasonable than the other, but just because it is more reasonable doesn’t make it true.

All of this, and more, makes debates as a standard of truth shaky ground at best.

Of course, every point I made is debatable. Go figure that one out.

The Debater’s Participation in Truth-Seeking

Since debate is approached as a zero-sum game, it is hard for the participants in the debate to really listen to the opposition. In fact, the word “opponent” is problematic because of this very reason. If we are really about truth-seeking, then we should be able to listen and hear the other side. This means listening, taking notes, asking questions for clarification, considering angles, and engaging in meditation on the points that have been made.

After all, we would want them to do the same for us.

But debates do not allow for this creative engagement. Most participants in a debate knew what they believed long before the idea of having a debate popped into their brains. All of their research, study, and chart-making came about after deciding on their position.

Of course, they may have reached their position based upon a lot of study, but if we are all ultimately ignorant in comparison to God, the chances we got something objectively correct on our first go of it is relatively slim I’d say.

In fact, as mentioned above, if the true proposition lies somewhere in between the propositions being debated, it might be best if the participants were allowed to modify their propositions slightly until they found themselves signing the same proposition.

So while it may be argued that debates help the audience discover truth, I feel as if it does more harm than good for the participants because it may just close their minds to truth.

But let’s not let the audience off the hook too quickly.

The Audience’s Participation in Truth-Seeking

When audiences treat debate like a football game, they have very little chance of actually learning anything new from the other side.

Let’s assume both sides are competent. Let’s assume both sides are good debaters and not “professional debaters.” Let’s assume both participants have the highest standard of decorum.

What would an audience do with that?

There’s several categories of audience members:

1. The group who is there to cheer on their side with no intentions of hearing the other because they assume they’re on the right side and have “already considered all those arguments anyway.”

2. The group who is there because they believe one of the propositions to be true but enjoys a good dialogue and is open to learning something new from either side.

3. The group who is ambivalent towards either side and heard there would be free coffee.

4. The group who is undecided and is wanting to get to the bottom of things.

Assuming the opening scenario is true, which seems to be rare, the people from group one wouldn’t listen critically, the people from group two may offer the occasional “huh” but will most likely walk away unconvinced because of the “more than meets the eye” dilemma, group three may spill their coffee when asked to take out their Bibles, and group four probably doesn’t exist in every auditorium.

In my time of reading debate books or listening to debates, I’ve fallen into group one quite often. I usually find myself in group two when I’m really looking to strengthen my understanding of a subject (in which case I might not even read the opposition). I’ve only truly been in group four less than five times—maybe three I can think of, but just maybe.

So that being said, even in the most ideal conditions, are most audience members actively participating in truth-seeking? It’s hard to say.

Towards More Fruitful Discussion

Debating may be fun and entertaining, but is there a more excellent way? How can we collaborate, share big ideas, and entertain new perspectives without framing the discussion as a zero-sum game? Is it possible?

Even in moderated public discussions, the ego’s need to defend itself, come out on top, and appear victorious may get in the way of actual engagement with the other’s ideas. As long as there is a sense of winners and losers, then these discussions will have the same problems I’ve listed above.

Perhaps the best way to approach these sorts of things is through a round table discussion. This spirit can be captured in those books on “Four Views,” but even these face the same limitations when approached in a certain way.

I think the best we can do is approach each discussion we have with someone of the opposite viewpoint with a mentality of “what can they teach me?” If we keep our minds open, our hearts set on love, our speech seasoned with salt, and our need to “win” far from ourselves, then we may just do alright.