Tuesday, August 11, 2009

The Art of Debate Doesn't Involve Screaming

I had a friend that used to claim that he was a great debater, but whenever anyone would try debating him, the whole thing just boiled down to him shouting the other person down, then calling them names. Eventually, I just stopped engaging him in debate. I'd just let him talk until he said whatever it was he wanted to get out, then leave the room, because that was why he started the conversation to begin with. It wasn't to listen, it was speak his mind.

But what does that solve? Sure, one side gets to speak their minds, but what if the other side has some helpful information that you might need. What if, heaven forbid, you don't know what you're talking about?

Let's say you're a know-it-all who won't shut the fuck up. And you're standing next to a mountain that's about to explode. Now, there's a government geologist with you who's trying to tell you that the mountain is about to blow up and that you should leave "unless you're able to survive a 500 megaton explosion and submersion in lava." Which you're not, because humans are surprisingly fragile, believe it or not. But you won't listen, because Glenn Beck said that listening to the government is going to lead us to socialism. You shout the guy down, and he stops trying to save you. Two thousand years later, an anthropologist has your idiot bones displayed in an exhibit entitled, "Dumbfuck who wouldn't get away from the exploding mountain."

This is the kind of stuff that's happening all across the country in these town hall meetings. I'm not saying that either side is right or wrong, but screaming at people because Sean Hannity told you that Obama secretly hates white people isn't going to help anyone except Fox News, I guess. But it doesn't help anything. Nothing turns a person off to listening like screaming over the top of them. If anything, it just makes the screamer look stupid.

See, screaming is generally associated with "crazytalk." You've never heard of anyone screaming being defined as "reasonable," but you have seen them getting tasered by the police. That's not coincidence, folks.

It's also not coincidence that the people doing the screaming are always talking about "death panels" and "having to prove that you're worthy of healthcare." Even when it's said in a relatively calm voice, like Sarah Palin's, it still sounds like lunacy. And that's why Sarah Palin will never become President.

Point being, you're undermining your own debate, simply by screaming. The content doesn't matter, because if I screamed at people that Ann Coulter is a shell that houses the spirit of Satan, no one would believe me, no matter how true it was, until after she was already harvesting souls.

What we should be doing (or at least attempting to do) is engaging in "civilized discourse." Now, some people who regularly watch Fox News might be wondering, "The samhill is that?" Civilized discourse is when two people are conversing like adults. One person speaks in and even and calm tone while the other considers what's being said, before responding in kind. It's basically what we attempt to teach our third graders to do.

Notice that there's nothing in there about "waiting to talk," "interrupting," "name calling," or "shouting from the rafters." That's because those things are inherently against the nature of civilized discourse. The minute those things happen, people are no longer open to listening, and what's that going to solve? You can't convince anyone by insulting them, which is why Pat Robertson will never expand his demographic.

And what kind of example are you setting for your kids? I'm just asking, because these are the same people who are worried about how things affect the children. Well, you're not exactly providing a sterling example of patience when you can't be bothered to behave yourself in a crowded auditorium. Tell you what: Next time your kid gets sent to the office for interrupting his teacher because he didn't understand why he needed to learn long division, don't say shit about rules or manners, because you clearly didn't teach him any. You can't teach what you don't know, right?

How about, we try something new. How about, instead of ruining the credibility of people like yourself by acting a complete ass, and destroying the validity of your argument, you try these steps here:

1. Don't use your moment as a "gotcha" moment. There are only a couple of people in the room who have seen this bill, and you're not one of them. It stands to reason that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Stop asking the person who's actually seen the (1,200 page) bill why they're lying about "killing kids with Down's Syndrome." If you're going to bring up a conspiracy theory, try bringing up one that could actually happen, like a man spending most of his adult life in a drunken haze stealing the Presidency. We're not the Spartans, so we're not worried about the handicapped diluting our gene pool and awesome fighting force.

2. Shut the fuck up. You're not the only person in the room and someone who isn't a hillbilly might want to hear what's being said. You're talking to an elected member of government, not heckling a stand-up comic. If I were the person speaking, I'd pretend that I felt threatened and have security escort your face into their fists.

3. Understand that it's possible that Fox News might not be entirely honest at times. Believe it or not, Sean Hannity has blatantly edited video to persuade people to believe what he wants. I know it's hard to believe, because who couldn't trust a strapping, young Irishman like Sean Hannity? Only the people who have caught him in his many lies. To quote his favorite pageant winner/post-abandoner, Sarah Palin, "How about you quit making stuff up?" You know, like "Obama's a Kenyan Socialist." I suppose he's from the future, too.

There's nothing wrong with disagreements, because we all have them. I don't call people stupid for buying Beyonce's music, but I just hope that one day, they'll see the light. What we're not seeing is that it's not about winning the argument, it's about finding a workable solution that we can all live with. Like Al Sharpton recently said to Ann Coulter, just before she went back to her hateful talking points, "Just because we disagree doesn't mean we have to be disagreeable." And that's why Michael Steele and Colin Powell are saying that people need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. It's also why Rush Limbaugh would never succeed in politics. That's why he sits in a dungeon all day instead of making a real impact on the world. Except for how he's keeping people from getting along.

No comments: