The Limited Value of Debate

A challenge to immediate debate is a frequent feature of discussions–perhaps arguments!–in religion and politics. But is it a reliable way to get to a better answer?

There are certainly points of value in open debate:

1. Hearing more than one side at the same time
2. Airing out differences quickly
3. Challenging alleged “facts” on each side by the other
4. General brevity

In many political debates, these points are lost as rules of the debate are negotiated by each side hoping to favor their own person. These rules often prevent precisely the things for which debate is most valuable.

But there are also weaknesses:

1. Rarely are listeners in a position to check the alleged facts themselves
2. It’s quite possible for both, or all, debate participants to be wrong
3. Debates go to the quick, confident speakers, but confidence is not a reliable indicator of accuracy
4. Debates tend to demand, and often get, quick responses where more deliberation is necessary

I write this as someone who is often asked questions with an assumption by my questioner that I am an expert. I was once informed that I took too long answering, and should just give the answer based on my expertise in about 30 seconds.

While I am fairly confident of my answers to many questions in the area of biblical studies, I have some problems with this view.

First, I am well aware that there are others, many with better credentials than mine, who disagree with my own position. Is it my duty to present a consensus view even if it differs? If I present my own, should I point out that the consensus is different? How much confidence should I show in a view that I know is a subject of valid debate?

Second, while I often have the upper hand in a debate, I have also experienced times when an opponent overwhelmed me with invention. How do I know? I heard things that I couldn’t confidently refute on the spot, yet which, on further research, I discovered were unfounded.

We tend to treat the quick thinker as more intelligent, but that is frequently not the case.

Third, there’s a popular tendency to accept the quick, confident answer as valid and leave it at that. I prefer to fight that tendency.

But for many people whose brains work more slowly, or whose memories are not stellar, the quick give and take of verbal debate is challenging, and not in a good way. The speaker demands a decision, yet the hearer has not had time to process. We tend to treat the quick thinker as more intelligent, but that is frequently not the case.

I have some suggestions:

1. You are the person who has to decide. Take whatever time allows you to make your best decision.
2. Don’t let anyone dismiss you or diminish you because you refuse to acknowledge their self-assumed superior wisdom in an instant.
3. Listen to more than one voice. Read more than one article. Study from more than one book.
4. Don’t be concerned about winning debates. Learning is more important. Planting seeds is more important. Winning on points is just ego-building.

Debating is actually a good thing and can be helpful. It’s the pressure to make quick decisions that creates problems.

Listen, study, discern! You are responsible for you.

(Featured image generated by Jetpack AI.)