The Debating Society Principle.

As a qualitative researcher, it’s essential that I be skilled in gathering and understanding all points of view on a research topic.To put this in context, I was a member of the debating club in high school. Despite not being a very good debater – no killer instinct, they told me – the experience was a formative one. The club had three rules:

1. All arguments must be grounded in verifiable facts – no making stuff up

2. No personal attacks

3. Whatever side of the issue you’re assigned, you must debate to win – regardless of your own opinion on the topic

I’ve never forgotten that third rule. We debated a lot of fraught issues: welfare, school prayer and creationism, to name a few. The experience of arguing an opinion that I didn’t hold was uncomfortable, but also exhilarating.

I’ve come to understand that if you can’t argue every side of an issue – regardless of where you personally stand – you don’t really understand the issue. The philosopher John Stuart Mill put it well:

“He who knows only his side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, but if he is unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.”

I continue to follow this principle. I feel a responsibility to be able to state coherently the arguments of people who disagree with me.

I’ve written in the past that – while we must respect others and their right to their opinion – we don’t have to respect opinions themselves. Here’s a build on that; you can respect an opinion without agreeing with it. But to do that you must understand it. Furthermore, if you aren’t willing to try to understand a conflicting opinion, how much respect do you have for the people who hold it?

Being able to argue the other side of an issue takes resolve – maybe even courage. Looking for information that contradicts your worldview and then constructing an argument in conflict with your own opinion can be nerve-racking. There’s a reason we have the term ‘cognitive dissonance.’ However, it is essential to respectful discourse.

So, pick a controversial, emotionally-loaded topic about which you feel strongly: voting rights, abortion, religious freedom, eating meat, whatever, and ask yourself this: if you were a member of my high school debating club, could you convincingly argue the other side? If not, what does that say about your command of the issue? And what might you do about that?