Recognize the Opportunity in Controversy

Many people do little more than rant and rave when a controversial issue is mentioned, rambling on about the wisdom of their side and damning those who disagree.  They miss the real opportunity in controversy: the opportunity to be adventurous, consider new perspectives, and deepen their understanding--maybe even change their mind.

What, after all, is a controversial issue?  It is a matter about which intelligent and informed people disagree.  Not just any people, mind you, but intelligent and informed people. If such people disagree, there must be some basis for disagreement.  Either the facts are open to more than a single interpretation, or there are two or more competing values, each making a persuasive demand for endorsement.

In light of this, it is an absolute certainty that neither side in a controversy possesses the total truth, and that each side has a part of it.  Is each side 50 percent right or is the ratio 51:49, or 60:40, or perhaps 75:25?  What does the latest evidence suggest?  Have I perhaps been mistaken in my views?  Remember that the more lopsided you think the controversy is in your favor, the less likely you will be able to consider your opponents as worthy adversaries who deserve your respect.

Note, however, that even though some issues may not have all of the truth (since skeptics can be found for nearly every issue), not every controversial issue satisfies the divided truth standard. For example, some might attack the validity of the theory of evolution or the reality of climate change. While a small slice of the population may not hold that these issues are settled, the science is so overwhelming that anywhere from 95 to 99 percent of the scientific community consider these kinds of issues non-controversial. For that reason, these kinds of issues do not work well to satisfy the "arguable" or, for that matter, the "significant" requirement for our paper.

So find an issue that seems justifiably two-sided. And when you do, argue a thesis that honors that intelligent and informed audience. The tendency for students who may not have recognized the credibility of the opposing view is to construct an argument using loaded language.

Keep in mind that:

"If you don't see the merit of both sides...you're missing something" (Rawlins The Writer's Way 257).
"If you see no consequences to your argument, you aren't arguing" (258).

Columnist and author John Leo writes:

Arguing is crucial to education. It's a kind of intellectual roughhouse that lets students try out new ideas. E. J. Dionne, the Washington Post columnist, sometimes tells his class at Georgetown that he intends to support the argument of whichever group in the class is in the minority. He does this because he wants his students to argue as passionately as possible without fear of intimidation by a dominant group.

In his book The Revolt of the Elites, the late Christopher Lasch wrote that only in the course of argument do "we come to understand what we know and what we still need to learn . . . we come to know our own minds only by explaining ourselves to others." If we wish to be engaged in serious argument, Lasch explained, we must enter into another person's mental universe and put our own ideas at risk: "When a friend launches an argument and your rebuttal starts to sound tinny to your own ears, it shouldn't be that hard to figure out that something's wrong--usually, that you don't really agree with the words coming out of your own mouth. Arguing can rescue us from our own half-formed opinions."
("The Beauty of Argument," US News & World Report, June 13, 2004)

The satirical online magazine, The Onion, even has a parody of the idea of arguing reasonably. This "news story" suggests that conceding is for losers in a debate.

To experience the process of formulating opinions, reaching consensus, and seeing two sides to a controversy, let's attempt this collaborative exercise.