Discuss Rather Than Debate

The debate model is useful in only a small handful of situations, such as when political candidates are presenting their positions or when attorneys are presenting a case in a courtroom.

The debate model is based on and encourages either-or thinking: someone’s right or wrong, and if they’re not with us, they’re against us. When we debate, we’re more likely to perceive each other as opponents rather than allies, and to feel defensive against, rather than receptive to, what each other has to say. In addition, we’re often forced to choose between two opposing views, so we can fail to see the nuances of the situation or the many alternative views that may exist.

When we invite someone into a debate, we’re inviting them into a win–lose competition in which they’ll naturally seek to be the winner. And in order to win, they’ll have to come up with all the reasons their position is right and ours is wrong. Throughout the debate, they’ll be actively selling themselves on the rightness of their position, coming up with all the reasons that they’re right and we’re wrong, and they’ll therefore be less likely to be open to our opinion.

The alternative to debating is discussing. Discussion (which is sometimes called “dialogue”) involves sharing ideas and becoming aware of multiple perspectives. The goal is for each party to understand and be understood by the other. Discussion encourages us to examine our assumptions, consider the limitations of our perspective, and contemplate alternative courses of action or explanations of the issue we’re exploring.

By discussing rather than debating, we can make more informed, strategic decisions, and we can also reduce the chances that our interactions will contribute to infighting within our groups and movements.