Debate Culture is Fucked

Those who cannot understand how to put their thoughts on ice should not enter into the heat of debate.
- Friedrich Nietzsche

An introductory question; what is each participant's goal in a debate? What is their motivation? Which measurement is used to discern spectacular from awful debaters?
After I gave a lot of thought to it and examined some debates myself, I came to this conclusion:

The goal of a debate is to win.

Ego drives debate, not truth; it is not about finding a better solution or evaluating positions that differ from your original stance to get to a more nuanced and rooted opinion. There is no room for dialogue in today's debates, specifically in American political debate culture. Even more generally, there are those who agree with us, our comrades, and those who disagree, our enemies. However, thinking in terms of "us and them" has a fatal flaw; where does a society lead in which everyone shouts but no one listens, a society where everyone is convincing but nobody is convinced of anything?

The answer is quite simple; stagnation.

Stagnation is inherently antagonistic to the creation of new ideas (and thereby also the creation of new knowledge) which ultimately hinders human flourishing. Hence, I advocate adopting a new style of debate, let's make it the old fashion way and actively use Socratic dialogue. Socratic dialogue is a genre of literary text, developed in the 4th Century BCE in which both parties actively listen to each other, think critically of their own thoughts and evidence they bring forward and both have the same goal; to reach the best current position currently known to them while staying open to new ideas. Furthermore, to clarify misunderstandings, we should ask the other party questions not to rhetorically annihilate the other party's existence but rather to understand and further evaluate their position. Obviously, we should have a clear vision of our own viewpoint ourselves, so we can quickly address any questions from their side. The key to this kind of debate is a mutual agreement on goal and method.

Former Havard debate coach Bo Seo illustrates this concept of mutuality in discussions greatly with his RISA framework. These are 4 questions you should always answer before engaging in a dialogue.

• R = Is it real? -- Do you actually disagree, or do you misunderstand each other?
• I = Is it important? -- Is it even worth arguing about, or is it so minuscule that it's not worth the time?
• S = Is it specific enough? -- If the scope of the subject is too wide, you won't get anywhere.
• A = Are you aligned? -- Are you both ready to take that conversation and is the objective the same? (even though he didn't clarify for me its advancement in that discussion field)

In conclusion, stop arguing to win, and start arguing critically about both yourself and the other party to get more solid opinions. Actively try to understand the other party by asking questions, encouraging them to ask questions, and reflecting on what your viewpoint is. Always stay open to new ideas and arguments and only refute them if you have actually properly understood them. Implementing this on a societal scale might be rough, but as with every change it starts by taking the first step yourself. Talk to your enemies for this is the only way to move forward yourself. You can be the change which could start this open wound to heal.

"Never accept the world as it appears to be, dare to see it for what it could be."
Dr. Harold Winston (Overwatch Character)

You disagree? Great!! Let's debate have a dialogue , thore#7653 on discord or @02thore on twitter.