Think back to the last time you witnessed a debate? Maybe it was a political debate between candidates, or maybe a debate on a news show between the host and a guest. Did you learn something? Did you come away from it with a new perspective?

I doubt it.

Debates are setup with two or more people attempting to “beat” the other participants, with each debater hoping to walk away being able to say “I’m right and you’re wrong.” Moreover, debates are often time-boxed, meaning participants have a limited amount of time to make their points. One consequence of this is that the debate ends before either party is able to fully make their point. Unfortunately this essentially means that everyone involved, including those who watched, have wasted a bunch of time. Worse than both people failing to make their point, is that the person with the good “sound-bites” is able to finish, and the person who is desperately trying to explain the nuances of a complicated issue is cut-off. Now there is a clear “winner” of the debate, but who won has no relation to who has a better understanding of the issue.

It’s winner take all, and it’s totally pointless.

Debates not on TV often take on the same characteristics. The debate is time-boxed because you have to go meet your friends for dinner. Moreover, one person is likely a better “debater” than the other, so they appear to dominate the conversation. But again, this has little relevance to who actually understands the issue better.

Doesn’t anyone want to actually understand the issue? Or how about solve an actual problem?

The best debates I’ve seen and been a part of haven’t really been debates at all. They are discussions, and while they are sometimes heated, they differ from debates in a number of ways.

First, there is a clear problem statement, and all participants care about solving the problem more than “winning”. A debate is pointless if two people are just strutting their stuff with no end goal in mind. A good debate should be centered around a clear problem statement, and the goal of the debate should be to solve the problem.

Second, the discussion needs to be allowed to go as long as it needs to. We’re trying to understand how to solve a problem. Shutting the debate down when only half the information has been presented just means the problem isn’t solved. If you need to take a break, fine, but come back to it.

Third, anything is fair game. What I mean by this is, any possible solution presented should be evaluated, any piece of evidence should be considered, any relevant data should be admitted to the discussion.

Lastly, all participants and viewers need to be open to the fact that they might be wrong. The goal is to solve the problem, and when presented with evidence that your view may not be right, you need to be ready to accept that and change your stance.

The debates around school shootings highlights for me how bad we are at problem solving. On one side, you have people advocating for more security at schools, or even arming teachers. On the other side, you have people advocating for stricter gun laws. Regardless of which side you land on, think for a second, how seriously have you actually considered what the other side is saying? Are you open to the fact that they might actually have some good reasons for suggesting what they’re suggesting?

The world is a very complicated place. Unless you are the only expert in the world on a subject, there are likely multiple views on any topic that should be considered. This doesn’t mean every view is right. It does, however, mean that we need to take the time to understand why people think a certain way.

Next time you’re debating a difficult topic, consider changing the debate to a discussion, and focus on solving the problem, rather than winning the debate. I guarantee you’ll learn something.