Pursuing Truth: Learning To Listen Vs. Debating

Grade 9

March 8, 2019, a Friday.

First break had just finished, and we started lining up at our Japanese class.

In that morning, some of the female students attended a breakfast with other like-minded women around the city on International Women's Day.

You might know where this is going.

One of the females in my class discussed their day about attending the breakfast.

So I responded,

"Why don't we have an International Men's Day?"

As men, we don't get as much love as women and children. If true equality is the aim, it would only be fair that the other 50% of the population could celebrate themselves.

I looked it up; it's in November. But we don't get as much buzz because it doesn't fuel any agenda that social justice movements and mainstream media have in mind.

There shouldn't even be days for being a woman or man.

Congratulations, you exist!

It's like three years ago, so I can't remember the lead up to this part of the story, but I then said quite brashly, and perhaps condescendingly,

"Men are superior to women."

It was great.

The women in my class hearing those words made them want to argue even more.

The whole period became the class debating about, well, who was superior.

I'd found myself enjoying these debates.

It was a game to me.

I had no care for what I truly believed in, as long as it was an opposing view. I'll surely get the intellectual sparring match I craved. I'd outmanoeuvre my opponent, using logic in almost any facet to discredit their emotional implications.

After school, I would watch many videos about these controversial topics, preparing myself if more challengers wanted a debate at school.

And after all this, we achieved nothing.

The most achieved was the entertainment value of watching upon as two people passionately attempt to persuade their perspective to deaf ears.

The sustenance didn't matter; it was about deconstructing their arguments.

I was hungry to win at these debates, let alone be involved in them. It only fed my ego and arrogance regarding my ability to debate rather than the ability to think.

During that time, I had my misogynistic views. (Some might even argue I still ascertain them!) Because most of my opponents were of the opposite sex, I evoked the responses I wanted.

Without fully realising my ideas, I recklessly took a position of being the most controversial and most likely to evoke a debate. These usually are not of mainstream media opinions; curious about the logic and reasoning.

Maybe that is why they also appealed to me, not only where they were controversial but also somewhat conservative.

What would emotion have to do with reasoning anyways? Feelings are subjective, meaning they can be biased. But factual evidence, who can question that?

Using concrete facts that are unquestionable seemed to be a winning strategy for debates.

That's all I wanted: to win arguments.

I had no regard for whether I was right or wrong, contradicting the true purpose of debate and discussion.

To take a perspective, you must believe it is correct. If you argued an opinion without truly supporting it, you are arguing under false beliefs.

These arguments were a means of my entertainment rather than ascertaining the truth.

I ultimately betrayed myself, fixated on wanting to go against the crowd, making a name for myself and being the ultimate victor of rhetoric for the wrong reasons.

Even in academics, I wrote a manifesto of the sorts in one of my classes, outlining all my controversial opinions. Including writing climate change was a scam in History and still ascertaining an A-.

I came across as arrogant, doubling down on my confidence in these ideas and dismissing every other idea as wrong.

When someone would reason with their feelings, I'd already dismissed them.

I made myself blunt, upfront and ruthless with the truth.

I justified my non-pussyfooting approach to telling the truth with honesty, further fuelling my crusade.

It is hard telling the truth because people usually account for the emotional consequences.

With my lack of empathy, I wanted to be the guy who said it how it is.

And with time, people's identities and opinions change, including mine.

Grade 10

When I was in Grade 10, I switched the gears.

I no longer saw the debate as a means to an end.

Effectively, I realised that debating does not make a single tangible difference.

What will most likely be achieved out of a debate are people further believing their views and becoming more defensive when someone tells their ideas are wrong.

We essentially end in a worse position than where we began.

I just gave up on changing one's opinion and winning the debate.

No doubt, I have made some people rethink and probably tweak their perspectives.

It does not matter what others think; I should continue to pursue truth and exercise it to the best of my ability.

I started focussing on myself.

So, I started listening more.

There were opportunities to debate, especially in our grade 10 history class, but I shut up and just listened.

I treated it like self-defence.

No longer did I initiate the conflict.

If someone does want to have a discussion or debate, I'd happily oblige.

Sometimes it's not even worth doing it.

If I know I'm going in wasting my time and words— it is not worth contributing to the conversation.

Until people can separate themselves from their ideas, you can't exercise meaningful discussions and debates.

What we sometimes see becomes a criticism of character rather than ideas: either because the receiving party is taking those criticisms as criticisms of their identities, or the giving end is deliberately attacking their identity.

It's one of those rules with dealing with people, don't criticise them. Most people associate their ideas with their identity and are perhaps also ideologues.

That's why I sometimes reclarify to people why we have these discussions. They think it's about winning, but it's about the truth.

For that reason, I am less inclined to debate with people who have not been able to do that.

The only time I give my 100% now is when I know they are wrong and if they are spouting bullshit.

Even then, sometimes, I let it go because it's not worth the trouble.

But if you're going to give yourself a voice and the potential to influence people, it better be very close to the fucking truth.

There are ideas out there that are wrong. So much to the extent that attempting to manifest their visions would inflict violence, chaos and anarchy.

And for the people at school who do this, I let themselves dig their graves. I can learn from their ideas and implement them in my developing theses.

Although you can stop listening to people's 'wrong ideas', it's good to be conscious of your take on their opinion.

We can learn from people's successful and failed ideas as long as we listen to each other.

Grade 11

Not much change happened here.

Just some character consolidation.

As I still liked debating, I tried joining the debate club.

Thinking I could rekindle the winning aspect of debating, but my god, was that a mistake.

I'm just an outsider looking in.

To my discovery, you do not choose what stance you take on a topic.

Potentially, you will be debating for an opinion that you and your entire being does not believe is the truth.

Now, we already know I don't argue to be correct. I argue and discuss to get a better solution than what I have already proposed.

I also forgot a few meetings to attend, leading me not to do it at all.

Looking Back At It

The most critical appeal to debating is it's like a sport.

Those skilled at thinking on their feet: performing mental gymnastics to stay on top of the opposing side.

But when starting to look at arguing as a tool for organising ideas, that is when you're able to harness its full potential.

One mind is limited, but two can achieve a lot.

And when having these intellectual discussions, both parties of the argument must agree to the pursuit of truth. That way, ignorance and malleus can be left at a minimum.

What happens if someone believes so much in their lies they then think it is the truth?

Stop the conversation. Don't waste your time.

You might end up fighting a losing battle, and you indirectly aided their quest of self-fulfilling lies. And it's unfortunate for those who cannot deny or are unaware of their bullshit.

On a positive note:

The best debates are among mates. (That rhymed!)

They can share your passion: through shouting, frustration or agreeance. The great thing is we are still mates, even with disagreeing opinions.

If anyone knows, my passion for these topics can truly show amongst the right people.

It's a vital skill to have: another method of articulating your ideas.

You can have too much of a good thing.

That's why I started to look for discussions rather than debates.

A discussion insinuates common ground; debate connotates the idea of a winner and loser.

Both parties can win; it does not have to be a zero-sum game.

Take at least one thing from these discussions. Use it to aid your ideas and give meaning to what could have been potentially wasted breath.

Discussions also make people more open to the idea of testing their ideas and seeing how it reacts with other free-thinkers.

Telling you now: I am a different man from the arrogant boy I was in grade 9.

I approach the world expecting black and white, but there can be grey.

Yet, I still advocate there is the truth, and there is reality, and we all have our different interpretations of it.

Whether through debate or discussion, see them for their real purpose, pursuing truth.