Maintaining Objectivity in Argument and Debate: Techniques and Approaches
How do I remain neutral in an argument/debate without letting personal opinions and emotions take over? This is a question many of us have grappled with, especially in today's polarized world. By focusing only on what is true, actual facts, logic, and reason, one can strive to be as objective as possible. However, not all issues are easily resolved with clear-cut facts, and sometimes personal biases and strong emotions cloud our judgment.
The Importance of Objectivity in Debates
Objectivity is crucial in any debate or argument, as it allows for fair and respectful discourse. In some instances, one can remain quite objective, particularly when dealing with straightforward topics. However, in other cases, maintaining neutrality can be quite challenging, often due to the emotional and personal nature of the issues.
A Practical Technique for Objectivity: Staying in the Opposing Position
Off the cuff, here is a simple technique to help you stay objective: take the other position. This means not just pretending to hold the opposing stance, but truly adopting it as if you were a well-informed, genuine advocate for that position. This exercise can help you understand the nuances and complexities of different viewpoints.
Example: The Controversial Issue of Abortion in the US
Consider the contentious issue of abortion in the United States, where two major positions are commonly labeled "pro-choice" and "pro-life." Let's explore how to take a stance on both sides.
A Pro-Life Perspective
Imagine you are pro-life. Adopt the position as if you are a well-informed, good-intentioned person who believes in the sanctity of life. The argument might go something like this:
Everyone agrees that each of us has the right to do what we want with our own bodies, right? However, is it any less morally justifiable to demand a woman carry a fertilized egg to term when biology tells us that many fertilized eggs never even implant in the uterus? The concept of potential life is a critical moral consideration. The world lacks consensus on when life begins, but almost all major world moral frameworks agree on the fundamental immorality of ending a life, especially not when it involves voluntarily terminating the life of a live, breathing person. So, ending a fetus the day before birth isn't fundamentally different from ending a newborn, is it?
A Pro-Choice Perspective
Now, let's consider the pro-choice position. Again, pretend you are well-informed and genuinely want to make the world better by advocating for reproductive rights. The argument might go:
Everyone agrees that ending a human life is immoral, and this is even worse when it involves a newborn. So, how different is it to end a life when the fetus is days away from birth? Many people believe that a fetus, regardless of its position in the womb, is a human being, and that view is common among all major world moral frameworks, not just Christianity or other religious groups. The issue of when life begins is complex and often undecidable without further inquiry. To claim that a fetus is less human because of its position is a slippery slope. The focus should be on the evil of ending a life, regardless of its developmental stage.
Conclusion: Embracing Complexity and Continuous Learning
By practicing this technique and diving deeper into issues, you will soon discover that many political and social issues are far more complex than they initially appear. Some debates are so nuanced that even a 30-second opening statement cannot fully articulate the top two positions. Edge cases and more than two positions often arise, and you must balance different values. Continuous learning and a willingness to re-examine your beliefs are key to remaining objective and unbiased.
Remember, being objective does not mean being neutral in all matters. It means approaching arguments and debates with a critical mind, a willingness to understand different perspectives, and a commitment to rational discourse.