Typically in a competitive debate the goal might be to sway to audience. The more audience members which one team (or person) has convinced is declared the winner. However, outside of a competition, the goal is general quite simple; to change your opponents mind. How might we do this? Why would we want to ever do this?

Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma

In game theory we have prisoner’s dilemma. From wikipedia:

  • If A and B both betray the other, each of them serves 2 years in prison
  • If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free and B will serve 3 years in prison (and vice versa)
  • If A and B both remain silent, both of them will only serve 1 year in prison (on the lesser charge)

In iterated prisoner’s dilemma, this game may be played more than once. This suggests that since you would make your decision based on your previous experience, it (hopefully) means there’s less reason (perhaps even no reason) to cheat.

If we wish to convince our colleague or friend of our point of view we have to remember that completely destroying them and their perspective is not ideal. Hence it is important to remember that conversations like these must be treated like the iterated prisoner’s dilemma problem. You never want to go out of your way to destroy a person in order to change their opinion or complete something as simple as providing feedback.

Framing

Previously we’ve looked at how to give and communicate disagreements. The structure is as follows:

  1. Universal (set the scene)
  2. Would it be wonderful… (aiming for the higher moral ground)
  3. Pacing out objections
  4. Transition

This is great when giving someone information which they don’t want to hear, but what about going one step further; with the goal of simply granting deeper understanding.

Long Now Foundation

(The goal of debating in the) Long Now Foundation is not win-lose. The point is public clarity and deep understanding, leading to action graced with nuance and built-in adaptivity, with long-term responsibility in mind.

This very statement is the testament to the debating style we must all endeavour in the public forum; when we having nothing to gain or loss, but with the simple goal of gaining deeper understanding. But how might this happen?

How we should debate

The method of this debate is quite simple. Before presenting your counter argument ensure that you have summarised your opponents argument to their satisfaction. This is done as a demonstration of respect and good faith. There is to be no more debates about ridiculing language due to changes in context or connotation!

With no goal of scoring a snide remark, no point score, this would be the ultimate method to communicate ideas to each other.

Then we can really start talking.