debate

Debate and Dialogue

Differences in Structure, Practice and Goals

Remember those presidential debates? You know the ones, where Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were asked questions that they didn’t answer and instead talked about each other?  Yeah, I tried to block those out of my mind, too. But, they happened and had at least some influence in deciding the next president of the United States of America. Think about that: three televised debates of limited duration, scope and depth influenced our election. Again. Since Kennedy vs. Nixon, televised debates have garnered more salience in deciding who holds public office.  As if debate by itself was not bad enough.As conflict management specialists, we see debate as, shall we say, not the best method to resolving disputes or finding solutions to problems. This isn’t to say that debate is always bad. It does have some merits. It forces debating parties to hone their message, strengthen their argument and probe for weak spots in their opponent’s arguments. Those watching can consider points, counterpoints or the lack thereof. They could glean new information or perspective. In the end, debate could enhance knowledge of debated issues and shed inconsistencies. Except in today's world, it usually doesn't. Debate has several definitions, most of which describe it as a "discussion of opposing views" or "opposing arguments". That is, the focus is on the nature of opposition to determine which side is the stronger. And this seems to be widely accepted practice of debate. In most cases debate focuses on probing others’ statements for weak spots. It follows Sun Tzu: don't attack the strong points, attack the weak points. The aim is to win the battle, not to understand why there is a battle.We saw this in the presidential debates where the chief weak spots were the candidates themselves. The hierarchy of priorities went, from the top down: Attack opponent, attack opponent’s past, attack opponent’s message, attack opponent’s associates, attack opponent’s experience, promote own message, promote themselves, promote something else that sounds good, address the question, address the issue. That does not set up a clear, or even murky, road to solutions. In fact, there is no road. Consequently, important issues are not only ignored, they seem to be relegated to trivial nuances. And by example, this influences the public spheres of interaction: citizens engage in similar debates, thus getting everybody nowhere and increasing tension. In the end, Americans focus on probing for weak spots, attacking messengers and their message, and reshaping priorities instead of understanding issues and developing solutions. Winning the debate becomes the goal, improving and strengthening ourselves, each other and the country be damned.Dialogue is quite different, and more difficult. Within a debate, a strong, well-articulated argument with no weaknesses is avoided by the opponent, who then engages another tactic (e.g. attack the messenger). Within a dialogue, that same argument is greeted with “excellent point. How do we engage that?” Ideas are recognized and analyzed, not to solely find weaknesses, but to improve on them. Dialogue engages brainstorming, creative thinking, critical analysis and application.Because the goals of debate and dialogue are different, so, too are their procedures, expectations and outcomes. The goal of a debate is for participants to convince the audience to accept their argument over their opponent’s, usually by any means necessary. An argument in debate need not be complete, truthful, accurate, fair, relevant or logical. It just has to persuade. The topic of debate serves only as a launching pad from which the audience is launched far away.Dialogue aims for participants to discuss issues critically, openly and honestly with respect, civility and patience. If they are not actively looking for new viewpoints and ideas, then they are open to doing so. This means that contentious topics are not avoided, and polarized positions are not taken for granted. “That’s your opinion” becomes, “please help me understand why you think/believe that.” While participants should not aim to persuade others, they should be flexible in their stances, positions, and opinions. Understanding an issue and the various perspectives of that issue is paramount in dialogue. Differences do not equate to division. Disagreement offers opportunity. Dialogue participants understand that the best solutions can come from various viewpoints effectively engaged.The difficulty resides in the openness of participants. Disagreements tend to make people defensive and emotional. Animosity can creep in bringing resentment and  distrust. Critical analysis can erode into cynical opposition, leading to debate. In many situations an impartial or neutral facilitator is needed to manage the dialogue. They are not there to direct conversation, but to keep it on track, civil and engaging. A facilitator will keep track of points of view, ideas, points of contention, areas of commonality and side issues that can affect the current topic. This takes practice and a good facilitator goes unnoticed during a dialogue or meeting, until afterwards.In dialogue, agreement is not necessarily the goal. Good conversation, challenged opinions and increased communication are the primary motives for engaging in dialogue. From there, participants can discover, create, improve and implement solutions. The biggest difference between debate in dialogue is that debate focuses on opinions, viewpoints, and arguments. Dialogue focuses on the challenges, problems, and issues that underscore those opinions, viewpoints and arguments.  Debate seeks to win/persuade; Dialogue seeks to inform and solve. 


 

Can Craft Breweries Save America?

Craft brewing in America is booming, providing consumers a diverse selection from over 4,000 breweries. But some of those breweries have potential to offer the American public something else: A conduit for national (and personal) progress. If 2016 has taught us anything it is that America has communication problemsblame. From our private lives to political leadership, America is drowning in oceans of cynical opposition and blame; that differences equate to division, and division creates “sides”, and those sides must do battle to produce a “winner”. When we concentrate on debate, we sacrifice truth, accuracy, and finding and creating solutions. Debate often serves as a roadblock. Winning is not solving.America’s Founding Fathers knew that debating each other was perilous.  As Benjamin Franklin stated, “We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”  Infighting and banter would have, literally, led to their deaths. Instead, they sat down, face to face, to discuss differences and create new avenues, which led to independence and, later, the Constitution. And they did this without telephones, telegraphs, planes, trains, cars, the Internet and social media.Their conduit was public spaces: Local taverns and inns, many of which were small breweries.  While there, they engaged in Dialogue: In-person discussions that were honest, contentious and civil. They didn’t abandon debate, but they didn’t rely on it. They invited critical analysis and kept cynical opposition at bay (for the most part). Their dialogues contained more than critique; they invoked critical thinking, they looked for new insights and various perspectives, and cautioned against hubris to reac historic solutions. America today lacks the overall awareness of dialogue, acknowledgement of its benefits, and the skills to engage it. Thankfully, however, the safe spaces our Founding Fathers used have returned. Enter craft breweries. Many are local businesses. They are popular and public. They attract people from all walks of life. The ethos of a local craft brewery is community, and that of the craft brewing industry is comradery. Community and comradery are ingredients of a great recipe. When mixed with Dialogue they can generate progress, problem solving and unity.Yet, Dialogue is tricky and difficult, and should not be engaged haphazardly or on a whim. Since dialogue often includes contentious issues, emotions can run high and, if not managed properly, can derail the endeavor making matters worse.  Dialogue participants must understand that their ideas, emotions, beliefs and interests will be challenged, not for ridicule, but for understanding. They should not see Dialogue as an opportunity to convince others and “win” the argument, but rather to understand perspectives and recognize obstacles. Cynicism may pop up, and it must be properly managed to minimize its impact.  Participants must realize that Disagreement is required, but Division is not. They must also be flexible with their positions, consider suggestions, and allow for personal change (albeit not instant). And they must treat others with respect and maintain civility. But first, they need to meet, in-person, and in safe spaces. Using “out-person” conduits, such as social media and the Internet, we further our division by communicating to each other, not with each other. As a result, we focus on that we disagree, and ignore how we do so.  In-person Dialogue aims not to eliminate disagreement, but to enhance how we understand, learn from, and overcome our differences so that they won’t divide us.  Intense, critical, curious and civil discussions over a pint of craft beer just may save America. If dialogue participants disagree on everything else, at least they can agree on having a locally brewed, delicious beer. From there, once a commonality is recognized, anything can happen. More commonalities emerge and problem solving begins. Once again, America looks to local breweries to begin its (re)unification.To help spark the dialogue movement, we have created the Pub Dialogues in the Denver metro area. This somewhat monthly event has garnered large and small crowds, but after each session participants cheer the event. Many admit that they anticipated shouting matches and didn't know they could actually talk to "opponents". We applaud their openness and flexibility to experiment with face-to-face dialogue. Every "side" is allowed to speak uninterrupted.  Participants gain insight to others and better understand various perspectives. Perhaps the biggest benefit is that they experienced civil dialogue; that they can get past disagreement and onto problem solving. And that is the primary goal of the Pub Dialogues; to help people recognize that people can resolve issues among themselves and not rely on social media, presidential debates and cynicism.


 

What we learned from "what we learned". Obama/Romney Debate

The Presidential Debate in Denver on Wednesday night gave reporters plenty of things to write about --who won, who lost and what it all means.  One source (CNN.com) posted an article entitled "5 Things We Learned From the Presidential Debate". It lists five aspects to be taken from the debate to determine what should be, or was, gleaned from the exchange between Governor Romney and President Obama. Yet, none of the listed items has any substance; none matter when either gentleman takes office.Debates are all about who wins at arguing with the winner determined by a moderator(s). Substance matters for naught, and as we see in these "things we learned" articles, not even considered. Reports have concluded that Romney "won" this debate based on his positive demeanor, body language and tone, while Obama lost for the more negative levels of these. The CNN.com article claims Obama missed opportunities to attack Romney and slip in some 'zingers' that would make Obama look better, and possibly better his chances to 'win' this debate.But, big deal.  Whether Romney looked at ease, or Obama missed chances to win a debate, does not negate the importance of topics concerning America.  Or at least they shouldn’t.  And while news articles and opinion pieces announce what we learned from posture, tone and pursed lips, they underscore the emptiness of salience of presidential debates on either candidate being qualified for the office of president. In other words, the issues facing America, how they were discussed, and what the candidates offered to address these issues were not even touched upon in these articles.  Who cares what each candidate looked like, how they spoke or if they were at ease or angry? Apparently our news sources do.So, what did we learn from "what did we learn" pieces?  That many journalists and political pundits (and probably a good part of the population) think the debates offer (and should offer) only superficial factors that help calculate which gentleman is the better candidate. And this highlights one problem with Debate: that one side has to win, no matter which superficial factors are used for this determination. In the meantime, issues are ignored, discussion and collaboration shut out, and solutions unreached. The presidential debates, in their current form anyway, only serve to diminish the vetting of candidates based on substantive factors.A better approach is to have a sit-down discussion between candidates and a neutral facilitator with a flexible structure and loose time limits.  Perhaps even the candidates do not want this.Don't debate, collaborate.