Debatable

I suppose that EVERYTHING is considered debatable by someone, somewhere, under some circumstances … and perhaps everything IS debatable. (As I have previously stated, most dictionaries define “debatable” with phrases like "open to dispute" and "capable of being debated".) Still, in the interest of productive communication and civil discourse, it is useful to distinguish between those concepts that are totally “open to dispute” and those concepts which are generally agreed upon.

My mother and I have long held very different views on many topics, and tend to disagree frequently. Now elderly, she is increasingly confused, and struggles to comprehend the world around her. We continue to argue regularly, as we always have, but now the “arguments” are often over relatively un-debatable ideas like what day of the week it is, and whether it is morning or evening. (Granted, in the strictest sense, even these things are open for debate -- when it is morning at one location on earth, it is evening at another, and the precise day of the week varies in relation to your position relative to the international date line, but still …) I find myself wishing there was some way to convince her that SOME ideas are much less debatable than others. I would be happy to argue with her about politics, or religion, or recipes, or even fashion, but arguing about what school I attended, or what make of car I drive, seems like a horrible waste of time.

At one time, my arguments with my mother were based on differing views and differing values. Now they tend to be based on the fact that her brain is no longer functioning particularly well. This is a special case. However, there are often arguments that are just as groundless, and just as much of a waste of time.

As our society becomes increasingly polarized, people of differing views tend to automatically oppose each other, and be reluctant to agree on ANYTHING. I myself have fallen into the trap of refusing to acknowledge the truth of someone’s TRUE statement, simply because I profoundly disagreed with them on other issues. We seem to believe that agreeing with our opponent on ANY idea somehow weakens our own position. Or, perhaps we wish to portray those who disagree with us as ALWAYS wrong, and incapable of stating a truth.

A key to successful communication, and a key to resolving our differences, lies in finding ANYTHING, small or large, upon which we can agree -- though it is unfortunately true that our words of agreement MAY be twisted by those who disagree with us, in an attempt to strengthen their positions, and weaken ours. Still, our only hope is to limit debate to those ideas which are truly debatable, and agree on those that are not.

I find myself inwardly cheering when I encounter cases of people agreeing NOT to debate those ideas which are un-debatable. Here is an emotion-charged example: Shortly after the start of the Second Gulf War -- the war that led to the removal of Saddam Hussein from power -- I heard a program on National Public Radio featuring a number of experts on International Law. At the time, many citizens were stating that the war was illegal according to International Law. The experts featured on the radio program were unanimously deeply opposed to the war, but also unanimously of the opinion that, according to International Law, the war was completely legal. One or two even argued that International Law might be viewed as REQUIRING the war, as a means of upholding the terms that ended the earlier gulf war. This was a rare moment in modern life. A group of experts on law, all opposed to something, yet all agreeing it was legal. Obviously, this made a deep impression on me, as I vividly remember it from years ago.

(Please note that I am NOT an expert on International Law, and am simply accepting the opinions of THESE experts, which I found all the more credible since they ran contrary to their own values. Also note that I am NOT stating whether I myself favored or opposed the war.)

There is considerable overlap between the ideas of “debatable” and “reasonable” -- which I discussed in an earlier blog entry. I have already stated that our society would be better off if we all broadened our standards as to what we considered “reasonable”. At the same time, we would be better off if we NARROWED our standards as to what was considered “debatable” -- or at least were more willing to acknowledge those things that are basically NOT debatable.

Truth is complicated.