Political debate is a key part of elections, and is often used to highlight candidates’ ideas and policies and contrast them against each other. It can take many forms, including one-on-one matches, and forums with multiple candidates with different formats and rules. This article focuses on the role of the rules of debate in shaping how arguments are conducted.
In a political discussion, the goal is typically to win the argument and convince others that one’s position is right. However, winning can be narrowly framed in terms of vindicating one’s immediate position and defeating the other, or it can be broadened to include coming as close to truth as possible – even if that requires revising initial beliefs along the way. This latter approach is a more constructive form of disagreement, and a more useful basis for finding solutions to problems than the zero-sum, adversarial contests typical of most contemporary political discourse.
A major challenge in promoting productive disagreement is managing negative emotions that can flood the parties’ ability to think rationally. This is especially true when arguing about morally loaded topics, where competitive instincts are almost guaranteed to kick in. But there are signs that some people who appear to be enrapt in the bluster of certainty could be brought closer to civil dialogue and reasoned discussion with better process. The answer may lie in ensuring that participants understand their own emotional reactions, and how they might impact their ability to think clearly about the issue at hand.
About the Author
