It is very easy to criticize. “And fun too!” as
Homer Simpson replies to Marge when she mentions this. I
can’t disagree there. Still, there is always a good way, and
a better way, to do things.
And then there is a wholly ineffective way of debating issues.
Recently, it seems that people have dropped all form and strategy
when it comes to discussions.
We have learned to debate much like we argue for sports teams or
political positions. Everyone is yelling their own opinions, but no
one is listening to anything except how good they sound in their
own heads.
An effective argument is a powerful tool to wield. Take last
week’s “The Apprentice 2″ as a good example.
Andy, Sandy and Jennifer all had the potential to be fired. It
looked like Sandy was in trouble because of the Andy-Jennifer
alliance ““ until Sandy started questioning Andy.
Despite her high-pitched squeal, she got him with points he
couldn’t defend himself against. Trump fired Andy
instead.
Instead of attempting to convince one another, the purpose of
debate has become scoring points and showing off loyalties. Think
of the argument against a supposed extreme liberal slant in the
media.
It’s a ridiculous argument. The media is run by a few
Fortune 500 companies that have been known to quash stories
unfavorable to their big investors. They have become big businesses
themselves, concerned more with their ratings than their quality.
They use hot-button words like “terrorist” liberally,
and these words have lost all meaning through the mouths of a
neo-con administration.
That in no way suggests a liberal slant in the media.
Those attempting to convince me of a biased liberal media need
to find a more realistic argument. Somehow, their hurling
propaganda about the liberal propaganda just makes them seem
bitter.
What we currently know as debate has become reduced to stock
phrases. There is an art to true debate. You need to have
background. You need to know your own strengths and weaknesses, and
must be able to defend yourself in a way that convinces the
opposition ““ not supporters. You need to know your
opposition’s strengths and weaknesses.
In other words, you need to really listen to what you are
saying, and what the other side is saying. The point of debating is
to communicate and be exposed to differing opinion. Then we can
strengthen our understanding of the differing views as well as our
own arguments. And you have to present facts to prove your
point.
For example, the weakness of my argument is that there do seem
to be a fair amount of liberal individuals in the media. But they
are heavily checked by the conservative business. For every extreme
liberal, there is an extreme conservative somewhere.
Statistics and books out that claim to prove the liberal media
tilt are often generated by conservatives, just as the opposite
statistics are provided by liberals. Personally, I am more inclined
to believe a scientific report from Professor David Croteau of
Virginia Commonwealth University. Posted on fair.org, it shows that
journalists are most often moderate, and “the minority of
journalists who do not identify with the “˜center’ are
more likely to identify with the “˜right’ when it comes
to economic issues and to identify with the “left” when
it comes to social issues.”
On campus, protests have become rallying cries to create tighter
cohesion within the group instead of an appeal to the real facts.
Think of the conservatives protesting Moore on campus, or of the
planned protest against whichever president was elected. Their
protests seemed to be more about not liking the point of view of
their opponent rather than a real debate of the facts.
Intelligent discourse would improve our campus. The professor
review site would gain more validity rather than being a site
characterized by a few good points and many unrestrained rants.
Tension between student groups could be reduced to fair debates.
Bruin Walk could become less about shock value and more about the
facts. Outside of UCLA, we could revitalize intelligent discourse
in the public, media or government.
Most of us are likely amateurs next to those who participate in
UCLA’s Mock Trial team. These students argue fictional cases
in front of judges and attorneys.
Most often, students come into the program with all the problems
I’ve already mentioned. “(We) have training to teach
them merits of the argument, to apply the proper rules, and to not
let their own opinion enter into it because their opinion is
irrelevant,” said Professor Gonzalo Freixes, the team’s
coach.
This may seem contradictory to common sense, but it isn’t.
We need to stop debating with mere opinions. We need to argue facts
instead, and show how those facts prove our opinions.
So if you’re hotly debating an issue with someone, and a
third person tells you to stop because you’re both arguing
the same point of view at each other, or if the conversation is
getting nowhere ““ step back and listen.
Effective discourse doesn’t mean you’ll come to the
same conclusion. But you should be able to see the other
person’s point of view, even if you disagree with it.
Debating intelligently is a big part of what campus life is all
about. And don’t forget to have fun doing it.
Hashem is a third-year English and sociology student. Have
some fun criticizing her at nhashem@media.ucla.edu.