Debating
Is it unethical to participate in a debate opposing a belief you feel strongly about?
A debate is judged by an adjudicator, with the team that presents their case most effectively declared the victor. Participants are evaluated against many criteria, including presentation, structure of argument and use of language. Overall, it can be said that the winner of a debate is the most persuasive team.
It follows from this that when participating in a debate, one should aim to be as persuasive as possible to maximise their contribution to the team. In other words, your goal in a debate is to convince the audience (be that an auditorium or a single adjudicator) of the validity of your argument. We can see here a quandary emerging – if the topic you are assigned to argue is contrary to your beliefs (and to be thorough, a belief you believe others should hold), surely it is ethically irresponsible to attempt to persuade an audience otherwise?
While a debate may be understood by the audience to be an academic exercise, by very definition a competent debater should be able to persuade her audience outside of this context. The formal setting of a debate does not preclude any such persuasion taking place. Whether or not the debater is actually capable of persuading her audience is irrelevant – the potential for persuasion to take place is what matters.
However, if a belief that is held is well founded, then arguing for the negation of that belief, even to the best of your ability, would not be persuasive enough to convert a rational audience. This tenet assumes the opposing team to be of equal competence and possessing the ability to sufficiently rebut the opinions you present, since in order to be most persuasive, you will have to omit facts and arguments you feel to be supportive of your actual belief. Even with familiar knowledge of the opposing team, this is a high risk justification.
Deliberately not performing to the best of your ability is another possibility to be considered. The problems with this approach are two-fold. First, you are misrepresenting your own capability which may have greater repercussions in future interactions with your audience or team members. Secondly, by not presenting a robust case in the opposition of your primary belief, it may reduce the effectiveness of your oppositions argument since a position that can triumph over a strong attack is strengthened by this demonstrated resilience [citation?].
What remains is the recommended course of action: abstinence. Not participating in activities contrary to our ethical beliefs is of paramount importance – not only does it demonstrate the integrity required for ethical principles to be of maximal importance, in many cases it clearly signals to others our belief.
In this discussion we assume no extraordinary consequence resting on the outcome of the debate. Of course, in any real situation the consequence of not participating in the debate should be taken into consideration.
January 01, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Interesting thoughts. This is probably one reason why debating is so popular with staff and parents in schools – it promotes thought into differing opinions, even if they conflict with the person’s present ideas. The implicit requirement of placing the team above the individual would/should/may cause a person to see an issue from the ‘other side’.
Probably the most obvious debating topic to demonstrate this issue is the existence of God or a god. I personally am not religious and will gladly argue for the non-existence of any active deity. However, to argue that a god does exist would require stretching my mind into areas where it does not normally go, simply because it has already decided.
Attempting to justify the opposite assumption is a beneficial exercise. The scientific method is based entirely on this and many important mathematical proofs are “proof by contradiction”. However, even if the original assumption is not disproved, the wording and description of why it is correct will improve.
In terms of a debate, most people who publicly debate issues are able to select their position. Politicians, columnists and activists choose, based on their own predispositions, whether to debate for Labour or Liberal, Left, Right or Centre or for or against a particular issue. They (should) have no problems with debating against their beliefs.
Academic debates are of course a different issue, where the debater generally does not get to choose the topic or the side which they will argue for. An academic debate is in the same league as acting and a debater would be foolish to go into a debate representing their own personal beliefs. The debate and debater should be isolated from the actor, so that the personal biases of the actor do not untowardly influence the debate, and the result of the debate is not a true reflection on the actor’s beliefs.
Based on the premise that an academic debate is an exercise in acting (or presentation, or public speaking), I cannot agree with abstinence being your recommended course of action. Abstaining from participation in a purely academic debate on ethical grounds is unacceptable in this context, especially when the debater has a full understanding of the debate.
However, while I disagree with the conclusion, the justification is totally valid. Outside of an academic thought and acting exercise, an ethical principle requires some form of sacrifice or abstinence to be worth anything. A religion with no requirements or expectations is not respected, while strict guidelines usually are.
Sorry for the long reply, I enjoyed the post and it got me thinking. Nice blog!
Cheers,
Zooba
January 22, 2007 at 10:50 AM
“Abstaining from participation in a purely academic debate on ethical grounds is unacceptable in this context, especially when the debater has a full understanding of the debate.”
I’m sure the debater has a good understanding, my concern is for the audience. A presentation giving a thorough grounding on both sides of a topic is quite permissible, or even playing the devil’s advocate in a group discussion, however the limited format of a debate (you get 3 minutes only, and often no right of reply) makes it more dangerous, since there is no opportunity to “correct” yourself for the benefit of the audience.