Debate Is a Poor Model for Dialogue
Guidance for effective conversations across political disagreement.
Posted September 12, 2024Tania Israel Ph.D.
Key points
Debate tactics are not effective strategies for dialogue across political differences.
- Warmth and curiosity are beneficial for dialogue.
- Active listening skills can promote connection and understanding.
When we watch a debate, such as the one between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, it may stick in our minds as a model for how to talk with people who we disagree with politically. We think we should fact-check our opponent, point out the flaws in their thinking, and cite names and numbers. We imagine ourselves prosecuting the case with convincing arguments and provoking the other person with quips and barbs. We’re eager to have the opportunity to crush the other side, to win the debate.
But these strategies, no matter how useful in a debate, are not effective approaches to interpersonal communication. When I ask people why they want to have conversations across political disagreement, they tell me these things: 1) I’m having trouble maintaining a relationship with someone in my life due to our conflicting beliefs, 2) I want to persuade or convince others to see things the way I do, 3) I want to heal the divide or find common ground, or 4) I cannot understand how people can think or act or vote as they do. Debate will not advance any of these goals.
In a debate, our efforts are not directed toward our rival; rather, we are trying to demonstrate our knowledge and skills to an outside observer – a judge, an audience, the voters. We don’t think the exchange will help us build a stronger relationship with our opponent, and we never expect that they will be swayed by our argument and come join us on our side of the podium. You can see here our flawed expectations when we apply the model of debate to dialogue.
In dialogue, there is no outside observer, so the best strategies are the ones that capitalize on the human relationship. First, it’s important to build a warm, trusting connection. Antagonism won’t get you very far; people respond more favorably to respect and kindness. When someone feels like you care, they’re more likely to see you as a potential resource and seek your knowledge.
Approach dialogue from a place of genuine curiosity. Authentic interest can be disarming and may render the speaker less defensive and more willing to be vulnerable. As you demonstrate your desire to gain insight rather than confront, people are more likely to open up to you.
Active listening skills are beneficial tools for dialogue. Try providing uninterrupted time to speak, reflecting back what someone has said, and encouraging elaboration. Not only will the speaker feel heard, but applying these techniques can also help you focus on what they’re saying to develop a more accurate understanding.
When you share your own views, offer stories rather than stats and slogans. Stories are memorable and convincing, especially if they’re emotionally evocative. You might also focus on the meaning an issue has for you rather than providing supporting evidence or policy analysis.
Debate can help you articulate and support your views, which can feel very satisfying. However, warmth, curiosity, listening, and sharing stories are more likely to help you achieve your goals of connecting across the political divide.
I want to increase the political divide and foster extremism on both sides.
