Whether it’s a conversation at the dinner table or a debate between two ridiculously old men, political discussions tend to serve more as a venting method than a productive use of time.
Ever since I became interested in politics in 2020, I’ve been captivated by the concept of political debate. Two individuals, with differing viewpoints, justify their claims in good faith, in an attempt to shift each other’s, or the audience’s, ideological needle. However, the more I learn about politics and debating, the more I realize how misguided my initial impression was.
I first noticed my error when I began branching out to different political spheres online, mostly watching YouTube videos of debates. No matter who I watched, regardless of their side of the political spectrum, I always noticed a common theme of people looking to “win” debates rather than engage in a real discussion.
One glaring example of this mentality is shown in the way people approach these conversations in general. I often noticed if one debater brought up an argument, the other debater would go on the offense and highlight a completely different point instead of responding to the initial argument. Rather than diving deep into why they disagree about a specific topic, the conversation devolves into a challenge of who can frame the other person’s view the worst.
This style of debate shattered my innocent, good faith perception of debating, which I naively thought everyone shared. Unfortunately, the more I interacted with politics, the more I noticed this.
Those on the left tend to emanate a sense of superiority by implying one is a bad person for disagreeing with their progressive viewpoints, pushing those who may have just been uninformed on a topic away from their side. Those on the right typically say their conservative perspective is “simply common sense,” as seen today by Canada’s Common Sense Conservatives, and consequently shut down alternative perspectives.
It made me wonder if politics could be any other way, and if productive conversations around politics were even possible.
Slowly, I began to involve myself in debates, speaking with friends and family about my perspectives. I quickly learned when both people commit themselves to a discussion in good faith, it’s possible to have a productive conversation.
Rather than feeling like I had to toe a partisan line and “win” an argument, I was open to the possibility of being wrong. This acceptance allowed me to form opinions I could actually justify and explain, not just surface level attacks of the opposing side.
While it would be nice, I unfortunately don’t have a plan to magically improve political discussions on a societal level, and if a 19-year-old student could provide one, it would’ve been done a long time ago. However, I feel there’s still personal value to all that can be taken away from my experience.
Everyone can unlock the capacity for open-mindedness. Making a conscious effort to expose yourself to new ideas and genuinely engage with people who hold different opinions, is more valuable than any amount of bickering between two people who just want to hear themselves talk.
Jonathan is a second-year Political Studies student and one of The Journal’s Assistant News Editors.
Tags
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].