When I moved from South Korea to Australia at the age of eight, I learned the worst part of living in a foreign land was adjusting to live conversation. I waited for a topic change or a long pause to regain my footing after spinning out. I didn't get far because of the loose words and broken sentences.
There were a lot of things I didn't understand about my new home, such as why politicians presented as sports fans, why strangers were called friends, and why the food was not spiced. I began to smile and retreat into the corners of my mind because I couldn't ask questions.
I was told by my parents to imagine things from their point of view. At church, the pastor referred to it as a virtue, while teachers described it as a trait of model students. In my mind, it was possible to empathise, but it wasn't easy in real life. The differences between my peers and me made it difficult to bridge them.
When I joined my school's debate team, things changed for me. I was drawn to the activity by the promise of attention for a short time. There is a new way of thinking about empathizing.
I coached the Harvard and Australian national debate teams and won two world titles while chasing these insights. I went from being a newspaper reporter to a law student because of the experience. It made me believe that debate can improve our lives.
Two sides are assigned to argue against each other for and against a topic. Each speaker has the same amount of time to speak.
One must understand both sides of a debate in order to win it. The best debaters go through a strict process. They go through a series of side-switches in the last moments of preparation.
One way to do this is to take out a fresh sheet of paper and place yourself on the other side of the topic and come up with four best arguments for the new position. Reviewing one's own case through the eyes of an opponent is one way to do this.
From a switched position, we can consider we are wrong
A side-effect of the exercise is that it provides a lot of strategic insights. We feel what it is like to believe ideas that don't jive with us. We traced the steps a sensible person can take to arrive at conclusions that might seem strange. We are considering the possibility that we are wrong.
An unusual view of empathy is formed by these aspects of side switch. Most people think of empaths as a psychic connection or a reflection of virtue, but debaters think of it as an understanding achieved through a series of actions. The result of work is rewarded.
Today's arguments are hostile, useless and painful, even though any group has to manage its disagreements. We are shouting at each other from a distance in our respective places. The basic aspiration of liberal democracy is to build a society around peoples' differences.
The side-switch can help us get out of a bind. They force us to think about the other side, not so that we won't disagree, but so that we can disagree better. They only need paper and pen.
There are many lessons in debate that can help us disagree better. We are trained to change other people's minds with words. It shows the physics of our disagreements so that kids can use them.
The mainstay of elites has historically been this education, but many alumni have found themselves debating the resources to overcome disadvantage. The incoming US supreme court justice said of her time as a debater that it was difficult for women and minorities to learn at an early age.
In practice, debate is the most efficient way to uncover flaws in our thinking and encourage us to fix them. Entrepreneurs want to take advantage of internal dissent. Warren Buffet once suggested that company boards should hire two advisers, one to advocate for and one to oppose, on potential acquisitions. The larger the decision, the more extensive the debate.
This is not a new thing. Competitive debate began in English pubs and coffeehouses in the 17th century. The Ancient Greek custom of participation through oration dates back to the beginning of time.
We have lost shared values and truths, but we have also lost the will to invest in them. An ethic of "finding our people" (and ignoring the rest) has come to dominate as a result of widespread discontent with traditional institutions.
The aim is to play and experiment until we find worthy ideas
I think about the value of debate in these times and return to the idea of empathizing. The training debaters receive reflects in the side switch drills. Debaters argue both sides of the issues. They flirt with ideas since they don't choose their side or the topic.
The capacity of debaters to argue both sides of issues has drawbacks. The corrosive effect of mercenary speech can be seen everywhere. Politicians bend with the wind. Media pundits draw false comparisons and advance agendas. The news that Boris Johnson once drafted an op-ed in favor of remaining in the European Union elicited cynicism and despair. The speaker in the video is a competitive debater and therefore the views they express may not represent their beliefs.
Most debaters have doubts about the ethics of their sport at some point in their careers. Sally Rooney wrote in the Dublin Review that she no longer finds it enjoyable to think of ways in which capitalism benefits the poor. Some experienced competitors describe themselves as Hamlet, able to see both sides but unable to commit to either.
I don't think debate is inimical to conviction, but I do think it requires us to rethink the term. Strong beliefs are what we bring to the table. Convictions are what we take out of a debate. To play and experiment until we find something worthy of our commitment is the aim. It can lead to confusion and indecision. False clarity of dogma is avoided by it.
There are people who can be enabled by debate. Careful management is required for this aspect of the activity. Debate graduates teach the rest of us how to counter their tactics. The population is protected against the abuses of language.
When I joined my school debate team, I didn't know anything. I felt like I could be on the verge of a great change. The distance between me and my opponents was beginning to narrow as I sat in the assembly hall. As I stood and faced the hushed silence of the crowd, I felt my voice and knew it was time to make a statement.
Boseo wrote The Art of Disagreeing Well. You can buy it at guardian bookshop.com.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
