Why do we do it?

I've been thinking recently of my time on Layton High's debate team. This was a team with a history of winning. I think by my Senior year we had won Region 9 straight years, and District 8 straight years. This had engendered some resentment from other schools coaches, and I was witness more than once to an angry coach doing their best to try to torture the scoring rules to 'dethrone' Layton from our apparent strangle hold on the trophies.

This kind of dominance wasn't permanent, such 'dynasties' never are. But at the end of 9 straight years of loss, it may have seemed so to others, perhaps especially students who only measure their time in the competition to three short years in school. I submit that while I have my own immodest reasons for thinking we were so dominant, it is in great part because of the coach of Layton High's team. We won because we were the best, but we were the best because we were required to be better.

In debate there are, I believe, more than one level of victory. There is of course confounding your opponent with arguments they are unable to either understand or adequately defend against until your dominance is obvious. There is yelling louder then the other guy. There is winning on a technicality or by twisting someone elses position until they have to defend something other than what they actually stand for. And of course, there is being right.

I can only speak to my experiences, which were in the realm of L.D. debate (short for Lincoln-Douglas). Purporting to be patterned after the great debates for which they were named, this was considered 'value' debate. A proposition was given, such as "It is better to have an oppressive government then no government at all.", and all participants were required to argue either side, depending on the draw. The goal was to provide for the judge what you believed was the ultimate societal value, in relation to the proposition, and how you could only achieve such a value through affirmation or rejection of said proposition. An example of such values one might use in the proposition given might be: 'Freedom', or 'Security', or 'Justice'. As you can see, this is anything but an exact science. One must use their own persuasive abilities to attempt to persuade the listener to their point of view. Again, victory was possible through many different avenues.

Those of us on the L.D. team didn't win every debate, but we won a lot more then we lost. And, I like to think, we did it because while we could achieve victory through all the aforementioned ways, usually we won because we tried to be right. One can always find an opponent who can yell louder than you, is more skilled at twisting your words, but its hard to lose (not impossible, but difficult), if your position is right.

Now, there is probably some hyperbole, or remembering things the way I want to remember them involved in that telling, but I recount it not for its accuracy, but as an example of my bigger point.

Why do we, as a people, fight more to win then to be right? Of course if we hold an opinion, we must at least believe it to be correct, otherwise we wouldn't hold it. But why is it that we feel we must ascribe to our opinions the status of eternal and universal truth. And, why when discussing that opinion do we have the tendency to be more worried about winning the argument, then finding the truth. Such that we seem to use all of the avenues of victory I listed above.

I'm guilty of it. I know it, so it may seem hypocritical that I decry it. That's okay, I'm not perfect. I have come to truly abhor the way in which people will twist and torture someone else's position in an attempt to cast their stance in a negative light. It becomes very easy to defeat someone's stance that way. At least outwardly. But we don't change minds. We don't convince someone they may be wrong (if they in fact are). Nor do we allow for the explanation of their belief such that we may see more truth than we previously had.

Years ago I heard a talk in LDS General Conference that really impacted me. I think it did so because I was very guilty of the shortcomings it talked about. But it has, ever since, made me try a lot harder when I am involved in the realm of politics or debating ideas. The talk was entitled, "Instruments of the Lord's Peace" you can find the text here.

A couple of the most significant quotes, for me.

Have we who have taken upon us the name of Christ slipped unknowingly into patterns of slander, evil speaking, and bitter stereotyping? Have personal or partisan or business or religious differences been translated into a kind of demonizing of those of different views? Do we pause to understand the seemingly different positions of others and seek, where possible, common ground?

. . . we need to raise the level of private and public discourse. We should avoid caricaturing the positions of others, constructing “straw men,” if you will, and casting unwarranted aspersions on their motivations and character.

It is far too easy sometimes to fall into a spirit of mockery and cynicism in dealing with those of contrary views. We demoralize or demean so as to bring others or their ideas in contempt.

And he is right. It is far, far too easy. I think people who know me, and have been involved in political discussions with me long enough have seen a change since then, at least, I hope they do. This is an area that I admit I fall short in, but one in which I feel we as a people have a real need to pay attention to, and give heed to the words given in this talk.

Anyway, that is my rant for the day, hopefully more of a musing then a rant. I'll close it off with a quote that I wish were displayed more, especially during the unfortunately increasing 'political season'.

Whenever your politics cause you to speak unkindly of your brethren, know this, that you are upon dangerous ground.
-President George Albert Smith