Critical Debate

A debate is not a discussion. In debate you try to convince someone your position is correct and listen to another's point of view only to discover its weak points in order to refute what he or she is saying; so it may seem strange that this technique is included in our book. However, our formulation of Critical Debate requires someone to engage seriously with a viewpoint or perspective he or she has previously dismissed as irrelevant or inaccurate. Both of us regard this as integral to discussion.

Purposes

• To encourage people to consider views previously dismissed as irrelevant or inaccurate
• To create a relatively nonthreatening environment in which participants are required to critique their own deeply held viewpoints

How It Works

• Facilitators find a contentious issue on which opinion is divided among participants and frame the issue as a debate motion.
• They ask for a show of hands of people to volunteer to work on two teams: one that prepares arguments to support the motion and one that drafts arguments opposing it.
• When the teams are settled you announce that the team that volunteered to draft arguments to support the motion will now comprise the team to draft arguments opposing it. Similarly, the team that volunteered to oppose the motion is now the one developing arguments to support it.
• Teams are told they are not expected to alter their personal views or believe anything they say in the debate. For thirty minutes they will pretend to occupy a position opposite to their real one.
• Conduct the debate. Each team works on developing its arguments for fifteen minutes then chooses one person to present it. Each representative has five minutes to make his or her case in the debate. After initial presentations the teams reconvene to draft rebuttal arguments and choose a different person to present these. The rebuttals also take five minutes for each team to present.
• The whole group debriefs about how people felt arguing against positions they were committed to. What new ways of thinking about the issue opened up? Did new understandings emerge? Did anyone change his or her position on the issue? Which assumptions were confirmed and which challenged by this experience?

When and Where It Works Well

1. When groups are divided. This can be an effective way of building communication in groups split on a divisive issue.
2. If a group is myopic. When group members can't see past their own viewpoint, this helps jerk them out of their perceptual ruts.
3. Whenever perspective taking is needed. If organizational or community members can't appreciate other people's concerns, Critical Debate temporarily increases their capacity for empathic understanding of a contrary viewpoint.
4. To identify organizational and individual blind spots. Participating in this activity can help groups become aware of the viewpoints they habitually ignore.

What Users Appreciate

1. The purposeful artificiality of the exercise. People know they are playing at taking an opposite view and they aren't expected to change how they think.
2. Its theatricality. Participants use outlandish gestures or exaggerated vocal emphasis as they argue their position in the debate.
3. The competition. People enjoy competing against an opposite team. They cheer their side, give a thumbs down sign to their opponents, and so on.

What to Watch Out For

1. You can only do this once. Try it again and people will volunteer to be on the team they don't want to join knowing that you will switch the teams.
2. You must be trusted. Do this too soon in your time with a group and they will feel manipulated and betrayed. If this happens nobody will take it seriously.

Questions Suited to This Technique

We have used this when people disagree on tactics within social movements (“Should we work with this organizational structure to secure change or dissociate from it entirely?”) or when a difference exists on what constitutes ethical practice (“Decisions only have democratic legitimacy if they are supported by a majority”).