Tag Archives: political debate

I’ve been using the internet for a good chunk of my life. I’m old enough to remember the days of slow dial-up, AOL chatrooms, and messy Geocities websites. And while I don’t miss those days, there are certain elements of my internet experience that have remained fairly constant.

One of them has to do with debates. And if you’ve ever talked politics, comics, anime, or movies with anyone on any medium, you know how heated that can get.

Believe me, I know this as well as anyone. I still haven’t forgotten how heated some debates got on the old comic book message boards I used to frequent. Some want to say social media ruined discourse by making it too easy to engage in such debates. But I respectfully disagree.

This sort of tension between people always existed. Human beings have always had their share of strongly held opinions that they were debate, discuss, and defend far past the point of reason. It doesn’t matter how smart, educated, or well-informed they are. The passion with which they hold their views has always been strong. The internet and social media simply made it more prominent.

I’m bringing this up for two reasons. For one, I see a lot of debates and arguments online, especially in comments sections and on social media. I freely admit that I engage in some of that discourse. It’s rarely productive. And I’ve yet to meet anyone who has been convinced to change their position on something based on a point someone made in a Facebook comment.

Second, I live in the United States of America and this year happens to be an election year. Debates about politics, issues, and policies are bound to get more heated. And that’ll only escalate the closer we get to Election Day on November 5, 2024. I fully expect to see plenty of discourse that will make me lose my faith in democracy, the future, and humanity in general.

For those reasons, and plenty others I don’t care to articulate, I want to present a simple hypothetical to anyone seeking to debate others in any capacity on any issue, be it political or otherwise. It’s not a thought experiment. It’s just a simple perspective that I hope provides greater context into the nature of discourse. It goes like this.

You and one other person are standing in a room. You both hold opposite positions on a particular issue. You spend five minutes making your case to the other person. Then, the other person spends five minutes making theirs. You are not at all swayed by their argument and they are not at all swayed by yours.

But before you start any further discussion, a third person enters the room and pulls out a special phone containing critical, indisputable information about the issue.

In one scenario, the phone contains information that vindicates your position.

In another scenario, the phone contains information that completely disproves your position.

In which scenario do you actively fight for possession of the phone?

What I just described is situation that I hope adds context to the what, why, and how of debating others. Because if you approach this hypothetical in good faith, it puts you in a difficult position. Either you admit you seek vindication and are willing to fight for it or you actively avoid the implication that your position is wrong.

Call it confirmation bias.

Call it cognitive dissonance.

Call it an impossible scenario that will never play out because there are too many issues that cannot be completely verified beyond any and all doubts.

If you’re honest with yourself, you know how you’ll react in that scenario. And if you’re honest about how most people operate in heated discourse, you’ll know how your opponent would react in this scenario.

However you feel about what I just presented, I only ask that you keep it in mind as you engage in further discourse moving forward.