Conversing and Debating People with Different Worldviews: Avoiding Common Mistakes and Reaching Amicable Resolutions

Debate, to me, is central to the civil discourse. Well, that could be coming from a point of bias since I am built a debater. I am extroverted, intuitive, objective, and prospective, at least according to Myer Briggs.

In my experience in debating, I have always felt like I have the winning points. However, I do not end up the winner of most of the debates. Usually, someone whose point of view is not objective, centered in evidence, and is full of fallacies, ends up an apparent victor.

However, there are debates where I have felt like it was worth it to have the debate. It is not more of me winning, but amicable agreement in the end.

For someone like me, debating is inevitable. Whenever I am in a social situation and a controversial topic arises, on which, I have an opinion, I almost always resolve to debate. And there is my first mistake.

1. Not all debates are worth it. We often try to debate everyone, especially when their point is more absurd. However, some points are too absurd to debate. Quite often than not, a flat earther does not believe in a flat earth out of the absence of information. They do so despite, and sometimes, because, of a lot of evidence. Some positions do not rest on objective premises. In those moments, I’d encourage one not to waste their breath and mental power. Consider a different situation where an individual doesn’t want to take the vaccine out of their concern about side effects. Their premise is objective, and a debate can persuade the person on your point of view or lead to more learning in the end. But if someone’s reason against the vaccine is a conspiracy theory of microchips or population control, you do not have the necessary weapons to sway the individual or achieve a positive result. Choose your moments wisely.
2. Humans are emotional beings, and they should be treated as such. In an informal debate, there is a temptation for a debater to adopt a logical objective perspective that is regardless of the individuals engaging in the debate. After all, the truth is the truth regardless of who is saying it or who is hearing it. However, that is not true. To the person hearing it, the truth has to be relevant to them. A more empathetic approach to debates would be more effective.
3. Listen and respond to the individual debater. I had an interesting conversation with a middle-aged white man on the use of the n-word. His argument was that if white people can’t say it, Black people should not too. I rebutted by doing the general routine — explaining the fact that the association of the word with subhuman views of African slaves makes it not good for white people to say it and that Black people can say it because of its relevance in the culture. His response gave me an epiphany, though not in the way he intended. He went on to explain how he grew in the inner city and was poor, just like many Black friends he grew up with. He explained that the system has not been fair to him at all. He explained that he got out by serving in the military and working hard; that Black people should stop complaining and should work to get themselves off their challenges just like he did. From my woke comfort chamber, that argument is, to an extent, racist. But I understood that that was not the intention of the speaker. From a perspective of a white war veteran who sees like the world has turned upside down and white people are having it worse, it is not. This is where we err. I responded by congratulating him for his military service. I said that I believed he was an honorable man and some of his points made sense. However, I explained that there are things with systemic racism we might never agree with and it is okay. He felt good after the conversation, he also treated me with respect, getting a good outcome out of the polarized social media. I didn’t necessarily win the argument. But I believe I had a small impact in his life or any outside observer of the conversation holding his view more ardently.
4. Do Less Logos, More Pathos and Ethos. We know of the three rhetorical devices from high school — logos involves appeal to logic, pathos appeals to emotions, and ethos appeals to credibility. When writing a scientific paper or an essay for school, use logos abundantly. It can help shape the argument in more than a positive way. However, when talking with people informally, pathos and ethos are more effective. Appeal to their emotion, appeal to their credibility of a person. In a one-on-one informal conversation with a homophobic Christian, my use of the two devices was more effective than if I had said logical things like, ‘governments cannot legislate on consensual sexual matters while preserving fundamental freedoms of expression and privacy.’ I took him into the perspective of a gay person, and communicated to him in a language he could understand. I explored his own attraction of the opposite gender and paralleled it with queer people’s attraction of the same gender. In addition, I used Pope Francis’ view on revisiting positions of the church to add to my argument. At the end of the debate, he didn’t carry a pride flag and say, ‘go girl!’ But at least, in my belief, he will be more passive to homosexuality, an improvement from the former hostile view.
5. Winning is not the Necessary Outcome. We get so obsessed about winning debates, owning people on the other side, having better rebuttals and comebacks, that we forget the point of the debate. We are supposed to use an objective premise, which all of us believe, to convince the other side of our point of view by connecting it to the objective premise. Wanting to win the debate is a recipe for things going bad. Personal attacks and logical fallacies can be used to deliver the illusion of a win, but it is a lose-lose interaction. If I Kellyanne Conway my way out of a debate, a conversation, or a debate, I won’t necessarily make the opponent think better of me. The Kellyanne Conway is effective in avoiding implicating yourself. But it is not effective in the whole point of a debate.
6. Simplicity. Do not make it complex. Break hard points into small manageable bits. Explain like you are explaining to a five-year-old. Our brain is energy efficient, and it can avoid things that are too complex. If your goal is to convince the opponent of your point of view, make it ridiculously simple.
7. Be Ready to Learn. We enter debates with rigid minds and hypocritically expect the other side to open their minds to our reason. Because in our minds, we are always right. But there is always something to learn. The role of a debate is to provide a learning opportunity. Of course, your opponent can have a ridiculous argument like, aliens built the Egyptian Pyramids. You don’t have to learn their point of view. But you can learn about them and what makes them draw such a conclusion. You can learn about your own ability to debate. You can learn about the nature of debates. Instead of emotions flying high and reaching the tipping point, calm down and reflect at what you have learned.

There is no assurance that the person you will debate will not be a diabolical maniac who believes the worst of you. But when you find a good conversation, don’t kill it by being sanctimonious. Approach it from their perspective, as though guiding them from where they are now, to where you are now.

Debate and conversation is necessary. Without it, we will live in the dark, within the small lights of our own belief systems, separated completely from those of the other side. We don’t have to agree with them. We just need to listen. Some of these arguments can make us want to jam forks into our eyes. We must practice learning to listen to them, tolerating, and empathizing with the people who hold them. Don’t think of it as platforming; think of it as listening.