Debate versus Dialogue

Currently, there is much discussion about the polarization in modern societies. Other posts, here and here, have discussed this.

Universities thrive on the presentation of alternative perspectives. Learning is catalyzed by absorbing new information and synthesizing it with old information. Key to making this environment successful is the presupposition that those presenting such alternatives do so within a good-willed search for the truth. That presupposition requires that each locutor interacts with some humility, with the possibility that ideas contrary to theirs may be closer to the truth. In addition, curiosity to alternative ideas is a valuable attribute in such an environment. That makes one open to different ways of approaching an issue.

We are fortunate to have colleagues throughout the university who share a concern that we could do better in transmitting such valuable skills to our students. Some are wondering whether more public events with participants presenting alternative viewpoints on an important issue would be useful. Another idea is more co-teaching in courses deliberately designed to have each class present two different perspectives by the instructors. Other ideas are pairing up students to work together with some attention to pairing students from different backgrounds.

In these discussions, there often arises some different language for this work. Some use the term “debate;” others use the term, “dialogue.” There are subtle but important differences between these two words.

From one etymological source, the Online Etymology Dictionary, the verb “debate” is from the late 14th century meaning quarrel, dispute, combat, fight, make war, but from 13th century French, to beat down. The noun “debate” from the 14th century was a quarrel, dispute or disagreement and by the 15th century a formal dispute, a contest of arguments in a formal manner.

Debates have winners and losers. They seek to influence a third party to form judgments more aligned with one side than the other. The actors in a debate seek persuasion. They have no obligation to recognize weaknesses in one’s own position. They maximize attention to the strongest logical points in their own perspective and downweight the strengths of the other’s argument. In some sense, the other side is an impediment to their success in winning the argument. They would prefer it merely go away or admit defeat.

Further, the meaning of the word has morphed over time. The events we label as debates in political spheres or on cable television often violate the formal rules of debate in place over centuries (e.g., requirement to address the issue at hand, to explicitly forward one’s own arguments and to rebut the position of others). In these settings, talking past one another seems de rigueur. In the extreme, shouting, overtalk, and ad hominem attacks become acceptable.

The etymology of “dialogue” is different from that of “debate.” In the 13th century, the noun referred to a literary work presenting a conversation between two or more persons. Latin and Greek roots are about a conversation. The “dia” refers to conversation “across or between” actors, not the “di” of a limit to two actors.

In contrast to debate, dialogue is cooperative. The audience is not a judge of the winner. From the viewpoint of the actor in the dialogue, the other actor is a necessary complement to one’s own actions. Knowledge-seeking is the common goal of each actor. Their challenges to each other’s perspective are proffered in the spirit of gaining deeper understanding of the other’s position. Expressions like “you may be right” arise from time to time in the interaction, but the goal is not to persuade the other actor or others observing the dialogue.

Exploration of differences, sharing deeper understanding of differences are the goals. It is desirable for the actors to repeat the arguments of the other, to validate understanding. Paraphrasing other’s arguments is common. In some sense, the ego of the actors, their self-image, their identity are irrelevant to the dialogue.

Respect is key in dialogue. But autonomy and equal agency are also key. Actors should be under no obligation to “change their minds.” A common comment is, “I understand your argument better now, but I don’t agree with it.” And that’s okay.

As we at Georgetown attempt to fulfill our obligations to transmit skills of positive interaction among conflicting viewpoints, it is probably wise to use the notion of “dialogue” rather than “debate.” We seek an environment where all perspectives are presented with the view that none have the sole purchase on the truth of the matter.