We've dumbed down the art of debate

Some of you will remember the sinking of the Belgrano in 1982. Several of you might remember the Sun’s newspaper headline. It said, ‘Gotcha’. And a further number of you might remember something similar to my memory of the next day. I went to school and the Belgrano report was the hot topic. A number of us were outraged by the headline, others jeered with pleasure at the sentiment and several had no opinion. A discussion unfolded. It got a bit heated in places but stayed on topic. People listened to each others’ views. Those who initially held no view, joined in. People put their opinions forward, people made reference to facts they knew about the situation, people listened and we fine-tuned our thoughts on the matter. Some views remained unchanged but understanding had developed about why others held the views they did. Several people remained undecided or shy to put their opinion forward. We discussed it a little further over the following days. It was a while before the next hot topic appeared.

Now compare and contrast to – well you know what I am going to say - social media. You know all this but here goes. Someone writes a post or presents an article. Mostly it will be something we agree with because that’s how social media keeps our egotistical selves hooked. But even with those articles and others we occasionally stumble across, a ‘debate’ unfurls. But it’s not often a debate in the real sense. Usually it involves the plonking down of a consolidating view of the article/post or an opinion that opposes it. There is rarely any exploratory interaction between those with opposing views. The aim is not really to listen, it’s to shout louder. Opinions are challenged as if they are incorrect facts. There is little respect for alternative opinions or consideration for how a person might have arrived at that opinion. Sweeping statements are made and there is little tolerance of speculation or acceptance of ‘grey areas’. There is a gunning for the ‘right’ opinions to be adopted by all  - however unrealistic that is. Sometimes, but rarely, a fact is produced in the ensuing thread that supports one side of the argument. The person who holds a different view will ignore it or label it as ‘nonsense’, such is the power of confirmation bias. Sometimes discussions end up with dismissive comments showing the person is not even willing to consider the issue further or sometimes it descends into personal insults, people block people and nothing is achieved but ill-feeling. Within seconds, we can have scrolled down to, and engaged with the next topic.

Few of us debate well on social media. We have not got the time to adopt the necessary indulgence of others – such are the unwritten rules online. And we certainly do not debate as if we were all in the same room.

This approach in online debate does make me wonder what impact it's had on the way we think and certainly how we interact with people who have something different to say. There is little doubt it has added to the polarisation of views and black and white thinking. We do either agree or disagree when we post. If we are undecided or indifferent, we tend not to post. Views have to take a stance as there seems to be little tolerance of ‘I’m not sure’. (I guess not being sure is a quiet voice in a heated debate.) We also tend to be strong in our conviction of agreeing or disagreeing. It often becomes a matter of ego. We are rarely seen to change our minds in the light of new evidence. (I can recall one debate where this happened and it really stood out, as do the ones where people civilly agree to disagree). The idea that we can decide where we stand on an issue without being receptive to new facts that could change our viewpoint is the antithesis of progressive and flexible thinking and the root of much detrimental dogma (for example) – potentially damaging stuff! I think a further truth might be that if we form our views mostly by continuously agreeing or disagreeing, approving or dismissing, we limit speculation.

I think social media has encouraged people to present themselves as an expert, even on topics we know little about, as opinions don’t require genuine expertise. We very rarely ask questions mid-debate as that implies a lack of knowledge we cannot be seen to have. There is a glaring absence of questions full stop (with the exception of the sarcastic rhetorical).  We have also become good at dismissing experts too, possibly because so many people present themselves as one to try to authenticate their opinion more. How can we discern the real experts for the fake ones? And we can share the opposing opinions of experts on social media, because experts disagree with themselves too. So who are we to believe if the experts can’t agree and present a clear conclusion. I know – let’s make up our own mind and post it.

I also think the speed with which we are agreeing and disagreeing with so many different topics must be having an impact. The fast and furious development of viewpoints simply must mean we miss a lot of the nuance. Nuance take time to think about, they can be uncomfortable to mull over when we love certainty so much. Also, for those that argue passionately, it cannot be great for mental health. Scrolling down a news-feed, reacting positively and negatively within seconds of encountering different articles is probably quite a strain on the emotional responses we evolved to deal with far less frequently altering stimulus.

And what about when personal attacks are flung about? This really does show poor interpersonal skills - let alone a reasonable ability to debate. There are people who comment in a fair and gentle way but I have seen outrageous disrespect and insults for people who just see things differently – for one reason or another. There is little willingness to explore where a person's opposing viewpoint has come from and certainly little interest in it. It seems fair to say we should be angry at the institution, injustice, ignorance or inequality not the individual. A different viewpoint does not automatically make the other person deserve dismissal or worse, contempt, they have just arrived at a different conclusion and the reasons for this can be many. I think the aim of maintaining respectful relationships should always usurp the need to be right. I know we all know this but somehow, on social media, it is easy to forget.