A PUBLIC DEBATE FORMAT
Constructive Public Debates
A seven step format to reduce polarization and increase intellectual humility.
OBJECTIVES OF CONSTRUCTIVE PUBLIC DEBATES
A constructive debate is a moment of exchange and communication that aims at establishing what is good or what is true by highlighting both converging and diverging points across interlocutors.
When a classic debate aims at determining a winning party, one that will have won the argument, constructive debates are friendly to convergence and uncertainty.
When street epistemology aims at exploring reasons for a belief without judgement, constructive debates seek to establish what is true and what is good.
When negotiations look for agreement, constructive debates shines a light onto disagreement as much as it does on agreement.
When mediation aims at reconciling different perspectives with the help of a third party, constructive debates enables all perspectives to coexist without necessitating reconciliation.
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 Points are withdrawn when participants use ad hominem/personam attacks, engage in sarcasm, use generalizing, accusatory, polarizing language.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
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 be recalling the rules of the game and the objectives of the debate format.
Participants commit in public to the terms and the format.
Position: each participant starts by expressing their initial position starting with the affirming party (no contradiction at this point) - 10 minutes per person
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
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
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
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
Positions check: each participant reconsiders their position on the opinion scale. Did they change? Why?
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
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”.
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”.
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.
OTHER FORMATS
UNDEBATE - a debate for and by the audience themselves.