Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

discourse

Why Argue?

by

DCI Fellow Monty Krakovitz facilitating a deliberation

Monty Krakovitz ’25 (DCI Fellow)

As part of the deliberative training for the DCI Fellows, we were asked to read a section from the book written by Scott Akin and Robert Talisse titled “Why We Argue (And How We Should).” The book shows the importance of political deliberation from the perspective of Aristotle . The authors present the view of Aristotle that “man is a political animal” and that what we believe or do in the privacy of our own home affects society at large.

When Aristotle makes this claim, he doesn’t necessarily mean politics in terms of voting. He conceives of politics as how individuals relate to one another to form communities. From the moment that each of us are brought into this world, we are defined by our relationships to others. The newborn is not an isolated individual, but is someone’s son or daughter who relies on his or her mother and father for support. Likewise, the new mother is also not an isolated individual, but has obligations to her child. The term “political animal” means nearly everyone has duties and relationships with others, who also have relationships with others, connecting everyone together to form the society at large.

The authors also give an example of private beliefs affecting others as well. For example, a person, let’s call her Nancy, schedules a picnic at the park with the false view that the weather is sunny when it is clearly raining, and proceeds to invite her family from out of town to the picnic. The family does not know that it is raining at the park because they are coming from a distance. After being falsely told that the weather is perfect, they all drive in to find out that the weather is not, in fact, perfect but is pouring rain. The family has now wasted their day because the person who scheduled the picnic held the false belief that the weather is nice. Nancy’s false belief about the weather led her to act on that belief, which in turn inconvenienced her family in a large way.

This example displays a relatively low-cost error considering that no one was harmed, but the same principle can be applied to  other circumstances where the consequence of holding false beliefs is much higher. The truth is that ideas have consequences. When a man holds a false belief, he is likely to act in accordance with that false belief, leading to bad behavior that affects others in his community.

This semester, one of the D Team deliberations will be on abortion which is a topic ripe for discussion. The D Team will get down to the root of people’s beliefs in order to discover why citizens hold the views that they do. It is clear that a person’s views on this moral, political, and ultimately religious issue affects their actions. From the Pro-Life perspective, holding a false moral view on abortion directly affects the unborn child whose life is now endangered by the mother’s false view on the sanctity of life. From the Pro-Choice perspective, the false view that abortion is a moral evil leads citizen to vote in a way that infringes on the mother’s bodily autonomy.

This is why deliberation is vital: our private views do matter, and they matter deeply. In some cases, a false opinion can lead to minor inconveniences. In others, a false opinion can lead to the death of an unborn child or the loss of a women’s bodily autonomy. That is why it is important to argue: it helps avoid the high cost of error and aids in answering the big questions facing our society today.

Deliberation vs. Debate: What Kind of Society (and Discourse) Do We Want?

by 1 Comment

two women sitting at a table by a window talking

By Sandro Chumashvili, DCI Fellow

Since the age of thirteen, I have actively participated in competitive debates. I started with “world school style” and then found the most significant success in the “British Parliament Style.” By success, I mean becoming the champion of my country (Georgia) and achieving high results on an international level. After the world championship in 2019, at the age of just 17, I retired from debates. I moved to adjudicating and teaching new generations.

After joining the Davidson College community, I searched for ways to further develop the skills that I gained while debating, but in a less confrontational and understanding manner, and I found the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative (DCI). It focuses on deliberation and has the primary goal of depolarizing society, which sounded very appealing. With the other DCI Fellows, I went through the weeks of training and now facilitate political discussions and deliberations. Today I would like to point out some of the main differences between deliberations and debates on the different scales and levels. I will leave it up to you to decide which is better for the growth of an individual and society.

On the personal development level, both deliberations and debates help one to train specific skills. Debates are more focused upon critical thinking in limited time. It encourages you to protect your side at any cost, but the beauty of debates shows through when you do not know which position you will have to support before the preparation starts. For example, you may have to defend a position in the simulation that is totally opposite to the one that you have in real life. I remember that I had to defend communistic measures in the Estonian championship, despite considering myself libertarian; other times, I had to stand on the side of atheism while I identify myself as Christian. These clashes help you dig deep into the other side of an idea, which naturally forces you to think differently from how we would in real life; it internally forces us to question our beliefs and opinions.

Deliberations influence an individual differently. Here, you do not put up a wall between you and your companions, but to the contrary, you are open to changing your mind and accepting others’ opinions. Deliberations substitute the word “protect” in debates with “express,” meaning that you shall express and explain your idea, but at the same time, closely engage with other’s points. This way, the conversation tends to be less self-centered and touches upon the deeper parts of one’s ideas. People seldom totally agree or disagree with each other; therefore, deliberation is a more natural way to interact. It takes away the artificial “reject everything they say” point and nudges the participants toward a more interactive discussion.

Are both of those useful on all levels of society? To answer this question, let’s consider two crucial aspects: the stakes and the goal. If participants’ purpose is to show their dominance over another person, they become resistant to accepting the other person’s opinions, and deliberation is no more productive. The same can be said for when the stakes are high. For example, substituting presidential debates with deliberation would not be useful, since it is not in the candidates’ interests to find their spots of intersection. They always try to show their dominance in the areas they disagree with.

On the other hand, and on a smaller scale, wherever the main goal is to find a solution to a problem, and especially if compromise may be necessary, deliberation is a better solution since it does not disregard anyone’s opinion. The output reflects everyone’s input.

Personally, as time has passed and I have matured, I have moved away from debates. The main reason for this shift is how emotionally demanding they are and how high the stakes are. Debates are a perfect way to shape your opinion through clashes. Still, deliberations are more useful once you are more confident in your values and beliefs and are open to being challenged. What is more helpful depends on your values, what kind of society you want to see in the future, and how you perceive others’ ideas. Still, we shall remember that like everywhere, the answer is never black or white; both deliberation and debate are helpful on different scales and in different situations.

The Quality of Our Public Discourse: A Closer Look at the Shortcomings of the First Presidential Debate of 2020

by Leave a Comment

By Kyle Broxton, DCI Fellow

A little over one week ago, more than seventy-million people witnessed what is commonly referred to as the first “debate” of the 2020 United States presidential election. Throughout the event, the two participants used every opportunity to interrupt, criticize, and crosstalk with each other as well as the moderator. By one count, President Donald Trump interrupted the moderator or his opponent 71 times in 90 minutes; former Vice President Joe Biden did so 22 times. In the days following the event, near-universal criticism centered around the overall failure of the participants to respect each other, each other’s viewpoints, and the rules of the “debate.” But why are we in general agreement that this “debate” was unproductive? Is there something fundamental about this form of discourse that explains where the two presidential candidates fall short of what should have been expected?

It is important to know that many forms of discourse—debates included—are rule-based. Rules are especially important for adversarial forms of discourse as they serve to mitigate the inclination for participants to make rapid, emotionally charged remarks as opposed to articulate, objective arguments. An example of this kind of rule is one mandating that interruptions be kept at a minimum. As this did not occur on September 29th, it follows that the quality of the “debate,” insofar as it involved free and open participation, was poor.

Discourse ethics identifies respect as another indicator of a quality discourse. Respect can be divided into two distinct indicators, respect toward the participants as well as the arguments employed by the participants. Despite the significant difference in political opinions between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the existing norms of presidential debates suggest that they should highlight these differences while maintaining respect for one another and the arguments that each uses. To show respect for one’s fellow debater does not take the form of many of the remarks the candidates made, such as “there’s nothing smart about you,” or “will you shut up, man?” And to respect the arguments the other has made—though admittedly difficult in the context of the event—is nonetheless possible. For example, one debater could recognize the motivations behind the other’s arguments, while still disagreeing with their construction or importance. When participants show such mutual respect, debates can be more ethical and productive.

Recognizing the importance of following the rules of a debate makes it obvious why the exchange between the two candidates was found to be as problematic as it was. A failure to adhere to the rules results in these indicators of a quality discourse being substituted with frequent interruptions, personal attacks, and antagonism towards each other’s views.

Though the Commission on Presidential Debates (CDP) specified that “the moderator [would] regulate the conversation so that thoughtful and substantive exchanges would occur,” the moderator himself, Chris Wallace of Fox News, admitted he had not been prepared for Trump’s behavior. Ultimately, the quality of the debate left the CDP open to adding more structure “to ensure a more orderly discussion.”

This is to be expected should the goal of these presidential debates be to identify the candidate with the stronger arguments, a goal that cannot be fulfilled if the candidates cannot speak without being interrupted. Furthermore, respect toward the opponent’s argument can only be met if the speaker acknowledges the argument to begin with. Therefore, calls for additional structure in future presidential debates—in the form of muting mics upon interruption or requiring that candidates respond directly and respectfully to the preceding arguments of their opponent—are made in the interest of productive and quality discourse.