AN INNOVATIVE 1v1 FORMAT TO JELP MAKE IMPOSSIBLE DEBATES HAPPEN

RULES OF THE GAME

• Moral contract: this debate is meant to be constructive. Each party enters accepting the possibility that they might change their mind and ready to question their beliefs and positions.

• The moderator (or audience) holds a “Constructiveness score”: points are attributed when participants generously interpret their counterpart, use non judgmental language, speaks from their point of view and with humility. Points are withdrawn when participants use ad hominem/personam attacks, engage in sarcasm, use generalizing, accusatory, polarizing language.

  • Speaking time has to be respected. Cutting someone off will lead to loss of points.

  • If many negative points are attributed, is it expected that the moderator reminds the rules of the debate, insures acceptance of the rules or it may result in discretionary exclusion of a participant.

SET UP

1. A statement or closed question is proposed :

• ex: A Universal Basic Income will positively impact productivity

• ex: Should we establish a UBI?

  2. The participant affirming the statement or responding yes to the question must define the terms to avoid misunderstandings (when this is discussed asynchronously in advance it works best)

  3. The counterpart will not enter in a definition debate. Participants agree to engage on the basis of the definitions provided. If definitions are fundamentally contrary to the counterpart’s understanding, alternatives can be offered. If one decides to do so, the re-definition must be justified to help the audience understand the difference in perspective and enable a more constructive debate.

  4. Each participant positions themselves on an opinion scale: 1=Don’t agree at all, 7=Agree completely

  5. A moderator is designated. A timeframe is determined.

THE STEPS

The moderator begins by recalling the rules of the game and the objectives of the debate format.

Participants commit in public to the terms and the format.

1. Position: each participant starts by expressing their initial position starting with the affirming party (no contradiction at this point) - 10 minutes per person

2. Clarification: each participant can ask clarifying questions to their counterpart (no contradiction here, we want to make sure we understand the other side’s perspective) - 5 minutes per person

3. Steelman : each participant expresses in the most convincing and sincere way what they see as just and valid in the other’s position. - 3 minters per person

4. Roots: each participant shares a lived experience that is foundational to their position. Often we hold beliefs and positions dear to us because of a moment that has generated an important emotional response, sharing this moment is key to understanding the sincere motivations of participants to hold a position. - 3 minutes per person

5. Limits: each participant expresses the limits of their position. This can be through expressing doubts, agreeing that some extreme version of that position can be misleading, acknowledging ambiguities that are inherent to their position, etc. - 3 minutes per person

6. Positions check: each participant reconsiders their position on the opinion scale. Did they change? Why?

7. Convergence: participants openly discuss what they might agree on. We list as many points as possible. (moderation is key at this stage) - 10 minutes free exchange

8. Divergence: participants openly discuss what they might disagree on. We list as many points as possible. (moderation is key at this stage) - 10 minutes free exchange

   The two last stages can be envisaged much like a common problem participants need to come together to solve. It is about finding the points, not debating the points. By doing so, we also end up debating them but without the focus placed on contradiction but rather on establishing a common understanding, thereby providing a deeper meaning to the phrase: “Let’s agree to disagree”.

9. Next steps: what would be good ways to determine the truth or the best moral position on this topic? Could we find a criteria that would channel a disagreement into an agreement? These can be questions considered as thought-triggering until a “next time”.

10. Constructiveness score: the score is shared and there is an opportunity for closing remarks that aim to reflect on the score. How could I have been more constructive? How could I change my attitude to help the debate move forward?

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

A live audience is also a part of debates. Here are a few ways they can be agents of a more constructive exchange:

• Ask the audience to place themselves on the opinion scale before and after

• Ask the audience to take particular note of the constructiveness of participants (you can use audience interaction tools to implement this in between certain steps of the debate)

• Ask the audience about the most impactful moments of the debate (by framing the question around what impacted them you modify the tacit expectation to engage in zero sum thinking). This is a reflexive moment, an opportunity to acknowledge our own ability to change our mind.

A MASSIVE COLLABORATIVE DEBATE

Mass audience participation using Pol.is

Explore areas of consensus and dissensus without polarizing the audience

An expert witness to make sure the debate doesn’t go all over the place

A facilitator to help every voice express themselves

Select a topic and a fundamental claim

Place a few audience members (2-4) on a spectrum of conviction regarding the expressed claim

A facilitator will enquire with participants to understand the underlying reasons for their position on the spectrum

Changing position is encouraged if you hear justification that you find persuasive

Using a digital tool developed by Psy-x.fr we encourage all audience members to take part and move on the spectrum as the discussion evolves

A facilitator conducts a 20-30 minute epistemic enquiry of a key figure in front of an audience to showcase the importance of meta-cognition.

A constructive debate format involving the audience at every stage.

A facilitator will let the audience defend all sides of a given topic and guide them through steps to help them align around certain ideas.

This debate format is aimed at creating better, more productive exchanges. It is especially pertinent for polarizing topics and is based on decades of research on how we think, behave, and make decisions. 

DEBATE TOPIC EXAMPLE

Should we degrow to save us from the consequences of climate change?

1. Evaluate your level of conviction on this issue from absolutely not what we should do to absolutely yes, that is what we should do.

2. DEFENDERS - We will hear one set of arguments in favor and one set of arguments against and then a second round if we feel there are more unexplored arguments. These speeches are impromptu and should last 1-2 min. 

3. STEELMANERS - We will hear speakers provide steelman versions of the other side’s arguments. Here we pick reasonably polarized speakers who will then have to explain in their own words the best version of their contrarians’ arguments for 1 min for each side.

4. CONVERGERS - We will hear one or two speakers to tell us where they think we can find common ground and converge on. For 1 min each.

5. DIVERGERS - We will hear one or two speakers to tell us where they think we remain divergent on this issue. For 1 min each. 

6. Evaluate your level of conviction after the debate. Has it changed?