“It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.” -Joseph Joubert

In recent years this sentiment has fallen into dispute, with many of those who are critical of it claiming debate for debate’s sake to be unproductive and false. Often we see people so divided by their opposing viewpoints they cannot find enough common ground to simply sit down and debate the merits of their views.

First, we need to establish the difference between debating and arguing. What many people often call debating is actually simply arguing. They address the issue in a fight-to-the-death manner that leaves little room to compromise with each other, or to even learn from the other’s point of view.

Often, those who call arguing ‘debating,’ rather than what it truly is, are doing so in an attempt to give credence and credibility to their position. They want you to think that they are debating their point so that you are more likely to voluntarily believe them, instead of being yelled at until you simply give in.

When you actually debate someone, you are attempting to discuss the merits of your views, while at the same time challenging your opponent to both help them improve their stance while defending your own. In a debate, your goal is to achieve a complete discussion of the topic that leaves both debaters with a better understanding of both their own views and the views of their opponents.

Today, we don’t often see many good examples of debate. What television stations are calling the presidential debates are merely personal advertisements for the candidates who have used enough money and the correct buzzwords to be the top candidates on one given day. None of the candidates are focusing on the education of their opponents on their personal position; they simply want to shout their views the loudest in the hopes that some media outlet will declare them the ‘winner’ of the debate the next morning.

But because of that visible lack of good debating, debating that is done to better understand others and not beat them, it is important for people to try to take up debating in their own lives. Talk to friends and family members about tough topics like politics and religion, as difficult and headache causing as that can be sometimes, because you never know what you can learn from another person unless you make an attempt to understand why they hold a certain opinion.

One way for Dickinson students to bring debate into their personal life is the Union Philosophical Society, founded originally as a literary society that was in opposition to Belles Lettres. Today, it is a philosophical debating group on campus that strives to create an open environment for members of the Dickinson community to discuss important topics. Their meetings are Tuesdays at 8 p.m. in Denny 317, and you can contact their president John Shaffer for more information.