Dualistic Debates

So often we think of things in a very dualistic manner. Just look at politics; on almost any given hot-button issue there will be one "side" saying one thing and the other side saying another. Each side has it's set of reasons as well as it's set of arguments against the other side's reasons. Each argument seems to be set up to end in stalemate every single time. What strikes me as odd is that once you've heard the argument once, there doesn't seem to be much new added thereafter. You'd think there would at least be several different sets of reasons for each side of an issue.

I took a look at myself and what I do when I'm forming an opinion on an issue, and to my horror this is what I tend to do: choose a side and adopt its pre-formed set of arguments. And all the while I thought I was thinking for myself... What I've since realized is that if I try to see what I agree with in the opposing side of the issue, I often come up with new ways of looking at things. Sometimes it's a combination of each side's point of view that works best, sometimes a third, completely separate solution forms, and sometimes I stick with my original choice but for completely different reasons than what I started with.

It just reinforces a realization I had a few years back that much of the dichotomy between political parties is an illusion. Taking on a label can be a nice, handy way of defining a viewpoint or aspect of yourself, but you have to keep in mind that it comes with all the other possible interpretations people might come up with for that label. Be prepared for many misunderstandings before you even have a chance to explain yourself. Or realize that there is a misunderstanding.

Here's one of the best examples I can offer: I used to consider myself a Democrat. One day my dad read a selection from one of Anne Coulter's books. In it, she defined what a Democrat was with a series of descriptive adjectives. Shockingly, every single one of those adjectives were exactly what I would have used to describe a Republican! (With the exception of "terrorist sympathizer", which was really more an amusing attempt at an insult than an actual descriptive term.) If that's what Republicans think Democrats are, I reasoned, all we have to do is switch a few labels around and we'd be in almost complete agreement!

Okay, so maybe it's not that simple. But I did learn a couple things. First, that I should be very careful with assigning labels to myself. Second, that it might be useful for me to look into the underlying values Republicans have (as well as others of differing opinions), because I might surprise myself and find something there that I can relate to. Or better yet, something that I can learn to relate to.


There's one more thing I'd like to bring up; debating. Can't stand it. Don't get me wrong, it has its place. It can be very useful for showing flaws in reasoning as well as honing one's abilities for persuasion. It's just not for me. I have a hard enough time communicating an idea without someone trying to prove me wrong. See, if you're putting all your focus on showing what's wrong with the other person's words, you run the risk of completely missing their meaning.

Personally, I prefer a more "philosophical" discussion. When I'm forming a new idea, that idea is going to change a lot as I find flaws with it and think up changes and come up with new ideas that might work better. Inevitably I will hit a brick wall where there is still something I don't understand and I'm repeating the same old thoughts.

At this point I try to seek new input in order to dig deeper. This requires someone who will first try to understand the meaning behind what I'm saying. In other words, I have to bring them to the point where I encountered that metaphorical brick wall. After that, their unique perspective becomes especially helpful. Needless to say, both parties can benefit from such a discussion as ideas are exchanged and modified. Sometimes those passing "stupid" thoughts that wouldn't last a millisecond in a debate can lead the conversation into rarely explored territory that is much more interesting.