N E W | Readable in screen-friendly Blog format here.
(But you can still read in Broadsheet format in the post below.)
(But you can still read in Broadsheet format in the post below.)
DEAR WHOMEVER: Did I bore you in my last letter, in which I wrote about Debate? Surely not, as I did everything in my power to entertain. I rhymed, conceived cunning analogies, put on a play, offered lively illustrations, both verbal and pictorial - because I know how valuable your time is. It is so valuable it may be exchanged only for entertainment. So I did everything but sing; how could you be bored?
After all, I know that you are not one of those stuffed drones who lapses into a catatonic faint the minute it is proposed to ‘Look Into’ something. You agree, I think, that there is cause to give some attention to this word, ‘Debate’ - not just because we use it but because it has been claimed that:
“The word ‘DEBATE’ is being used as a cover for the desire to pass anti-abortion laws.”
If the word ‘DEBATE’ is being used “as a cover,” then it is not True Debate that is under the cover: it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Ah, the True Canadian emerges! As you wish, a wolf in beaver’s clothing.
THE BEAVER: If you are speaking to Canadians I thought I should make an appearance.
THE DF: Wonderful! I am also, if I may so flatter myself, a True Canadian. So let us expose together the wolf in Motion 312, if a wolf it is. Do you trust me to help with this?
THE BEAVER: I am by nature very trusting. But I plan to keep my eye on you all the same.
THE DF: Do not let me get away with any-thing. Let us see, together, what True Debate is and whether it is Debate, or a wolf, that Motion 312 has sprung upon Canadians.
HOPELESSNESS & IGNORANCE OF THE PUBLIC EXPOSED
In my last letter I charged the public with Ignorance about Debate. Citizen Beaver, are you insulted by that?
THE BEAVER: Call me Beav. Not insulted, no. I am reasonable you know, very cool – cooling effect of a northern climate. I don’t fly off the handle, I’m not an extremist. But I would like to see your evidence, because that headline we just read seems a little extremist to me.
THE DF: Well, maybe. But with you here we can surely fix it.
THE BEAV: extremism makes me nervous. I am not the Eagle, which likes such ridiculous heights!
THE DF: Yes, let’s promise to keep our feet on the ground. I did say I would deliver evidence of public ignorance about Debate, but let me get there by way of a question. - Does a person know What Debate is if he or she cannot tell us What Debate is for?
THE BEAV: Not really sure. Say more.
THE DF: Well, ‘IS’ and ‘IS FOR’ are sometimes related: as follows. Can you reasonably claim to know What a Banjo is, if you become mute and befuddled when asked, ‘And what is it for?’ Can you claim to know What a Bread Knife is, and fall into embarrassed confusion when asked, ‘What’s it for?’ Should we take your word for it that, despite that, really you do know? I think not.
THE BEAV: I suppose.
THE DF: ‘I suppose’? Seriously, how can you just ‘suppose’? Is wishy-washy Canadian? Look, Debate is a man-made thing; it’s not an organic substance: and man-made things are things made for a purpose.
THE BEAV: Beaver-made things too - also made for a purpose. Forget not the Beaver.
THE DF: No indeed; we include The Beav. This purpose is the very Reason that these things exist. What’s the Reason for a Banjo? What’s the Reason for a Debate? If you don’t know what a Banjo or a Beaver Dam or a Debate were made for then you don’t know the main thing about it, do you? - (By the way, what is the purpose of a Beaver Dam?)
THE BEAV: The ignorance of Canadians. Exposed.
THE DF: Well, Canadians can learn. But here’s my point.... - By the way, am I boring you?
THE BEAV: You’re getting there.
THE DF: OK, the point. What’s Debate for?
THE BEAV: Ummm.
THE DF: Well, ask people, What is the Purpose of Debate? What’ll they say? They will say,
• the Purpose of Debate is to speak out, to defend ourselves verbally against bad ideas (to preserve human rights, take a stand against exploitation, barbarism, backwardness, etc.).
... Don’t you agree?
THE BEAV: Mmmm....
THE DF: You’ll have to do better than that. Why show up here if you won’t speak?
THE BEAV: Perhaaaps I agree.
THE DF: Come on! You are saying ‘perhaps’ just so you can claim later, if things get sticky, that you never did agree. Stop being so cagey. Is it really so crucial never to make a wrong move, to be always in the right? Is that Canadian? It’s a free country: you can change your mind at any time. So show some courage and nobly say what you actually think.
The Beav: All right then, I agree: that is what I would say Debate is for.
THE DF: Now there’s a Noble Woodland Creature! Well then, how about this? Say I drive a truck across the country blazoned with billboard-sized images of destroyed fetuses. Is that Debate?
THE BEAV: Oh no, that’s not Debate, because how do you answer back? That’s something else.
THE DF: Well, I think I agree. It is showing something that is relevant to Debate, but not itself Debating. But look: you have just said it’s not Debate, but it is Debate according to the definition you agreed to just a moment before: speaking out against evil. The people who fixed up that truck were using it to do just that: to speak out against evil, fight for human rights (rights of the un-born), stand up against barbarism, etc. No?
THE BEAV: You tricked me!!
THE DF: What are you talking about?
THE BEAV: That wasn’t my definition; it was yours.
THE DF: But I asked you, What do you think Debate is for, and you said ‘Umm’, so I took a guess at what you might think. And then I asked you if that was what you thought. And then you didn’t want to commit.
THE BEAV: Yes, yes, I held back!
THE DF: But why?
THE BEAV: Mmm....
THE DF: Goodness, you are holding back now!
THE BEAV: I’m weak.
THE DF: Could we have a Time Out?
(Beav, this isn’t looking terribly good, you know. OK, realism: the Canadian Beaver is weak. But, really, the Canadian Beaver is strong. I am in your corner. The Canadian Beaver, O Noble Woodland Creature, is not afraid to say what it thinks, and even make a mistake, and be corrected no less! It has Honour. It admits a mistake if it makes one.
If I ask, ‘Is XYZ what you think?’ just say if it is or it isn’t! Do you have the Courage to say that What looks true, Looks true? Yes, you do! I left it up to you: to agree, to disagree, to put it in your own way.... Didn’t I?
THE BEAV: You did.
THE DF: So let’s rewind and try again. My question was...)
Why do we have Debates? If it’s to speak out against evil, a truck can do that, so:
• EITHER the Purpose of Debate is to speak out against evil (and then a truck can conduct Debate);
• OR, driving a truck is not Debating (and the Purpose of Debate is more than speaking out against evil).
And how about this: say you march down the street holding a sign: is that Debate? Deep down, what do you think?
THE BEAV: I think it isn’t.
THE DF: I agree with you. It is hardly meaningless to stand in the street holding a sign. It is doing several useful things.
• It is asserting your beliefs;
• it is insisting upon what you believe;
• it is expressing your outrage at those you think are wrong - agreed?
THE BEAV: Yes, agreed.
THE DF: Marching is all of that, but that isn’t Debate. It is more like parading the positions that you will Debate when you get around to Debate. It is the pre-game show.
OK, now what about this?
I believe that ‘X is Right. You show up at my Summit with signs saying ‘X is Wrong’? So far, this is not a Debate; it’s just ‘he says, she says’ - a standoff that isn’t going anywhere because it is ... a standoff. So, wanting to advance my case, and show the rightness of my position, I come down and tear-gas you: Is that Debate?
THE BEAV: Oh no, that’s anti-Debate. You don’t drive your opponent away in a Debate; you engage with your opponent.
THE DF: Again, agreed! - By the way, bored yet?
THE BEAV: Having fun. Continue.
IN A DEBATE YOU WILL TALK TO EACH OTHER, BRUSH OFF NO QUESTION (ANSWERING EVERY ONE), TELL THE TRUTH, GIVE REASONS, & CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE OR YOU ARE EXPOSED AS A BIG BABY
THE DF: Well then, how about this? You come to me and say that your river has dried up, because some factory up-stream has diverted it into its cooling tanks, so your lodge is now sitting in the middle of a sun-baked mud hole. I say to you, ‘Well, look, sometimes there’s drought: a natural phenomenon, no one’s fault!’ Are we having a Debate?
THE BEAV: No, you are not even responding to what I said!
THE DF: But I am telling the truth! I am making an important point about water loss!
THE BEAV: Bully for you! But you aren’t responding to what I have said. In a Debate you don’t just say stuff, back and forth - you don’t just say true things that suit you. It’s a human exchange between you and me. I start a CONVERSATION (about that factory and my pond): that’s the discussion we are having. Now, you continue it!
THE DF: What if I don’t want to?
THE BEAV: Yes, that you don’t want to is perfectly clear, but you are pretending that you are Debating! You are a Fake Debater, wearing the mask of a Reasonable Listener, when all you are doing is protecting your own interests by ignoring me and shutting my question down. That’s not Debate.
THE DF: Beav, well said! I do think you are onto something. Yes, Debate is not just defending opposed interests, is it? Someone raises a QUESTION, to be answered...
THE BEAV: About my water and your factory!
THE DF: ... and this question must be answered, whatever our respective interests. Agreed?
THE BEAV: Yes. You participate in the Debate, not cook up some other Debate you’d rather have. If you back out then you aren’t talking to me and you have run from Debating.
THE DF: Well spoken. - But look, say I want to talk about something else. When you start talking about your water, I start talking about Corporate Rights.
THE BEAV: But you aren’t addressing the subject.
THE DF: Well I say you should address my subject, and it’s Corporate Rights. Why does one Debater get to lock in the subject?
THE BEAV: But my issue is the important one.
THE DF: It isn’t the important one to me. Why do you get to decide which issue is important?
THE BEAV: All right, here’s the solution. I will talk about your issue, Corporate Rights. Maybe you think they will back you up. Maybe they will (in which case I will go after your Corporate Rights). Let’s look at the evidence and see just what is the case, just what rights a corporation has. Because I suspect it has no right to injustice, and taking all my water is unjust.
But now there are two things to discuss. I will talk about your issue and you will talk about mine, which is that I have no water because of your factory! And you will look at the evidence that shows what is the case with my issue and my water!
THE DF: Ah, so a Debate is a CONVERSATION in which all the relevant topics RAISED BY BOTH SIDES are considered. - So, let’s say I do stick to your issue: I say, ‘But there is plenty of water left for you.’
THE BEAV: Fine, now you are not telling the truth, because there’s no water left at all.
THE DF: OK, so to have a Debate we also have to TELL THE TRUTH. But say that I, in my government office, believe that you have water, while you, who came direct from the scene, claim that you haven’t. We are sticking to the topic, and are both telling the truth, as we believe it to be, so: we are having a Debate.
THE BEAV: All right, but the Debate is still on; we have reached no Conclusion. Our Conclusion can’t be that I do have water and I don’t have water. There aren’t two realities. It is one way or the other. There is somewhere we can go to see what is what. Don’t Canadians believe in facts?
THE DF: So it’s not what you think and what I think that matters; what matters is the WAY THINGS ARE. In this case, one of us knows about reality and the other one...
THE BEAV: ... is having it his way, the big Baby.
THE DF: Well, yes, if you aren’t ready, are not adult enough, to face reality then ... I think you are quite correct. - So how do we see who knows about reality - or as we used to say, who is right?
THE BEAV: I take you to my dried-up pond.
THE BEAV: Then once again you have quit the debate. The person who balks when we get to the evidence - the person who will not go forward, to establish and settle a pivotal point of fact (is there water or is there not) - looks to me like a Loser. It looks like he knows that the evidence will show him to be Wrong, and so he runs away. Like a Baby.
THE DF: What if I won’t go (I balk at Debate) and because I won’t go you denounce me, as a Corporate Devil?
THE BEAV: And a Baby.
THE DF: (Always the Baby, with you.) Fine, yes - but is that Debating?
THE BEAV: No, but you ended the Debate when you would not see the evidence. What more can I do if you won’t do the one thing we have to do to continue this Debate?
THE DF: Ah, but what if I offer a reason for refusing to look at your evidence?
THE BEAV: All right. But the burden’s on you. My pond is dry; you say it’s not: that’s the thing we need to settle. I say, come see my dry pond and you say, you have a reason not to? Let’s hear it - this better be good.
THE DF: Here’s my reason: ‘Your so-called evidence is irrelevant,’ I say.
THE BEAV: Not good enough. Perhaps you have a point. But it is pretty obvious that looking at my pond is relevant! So we are all waiting to hear your explanation.
THE DF: OK, here it is. I say, ‘Your so-called evidence is irrelevant because you have CONFUSED THE ISSUE!’ And all of my supporters nod in agreement when they hear this, because they know that this is True!
THE BEAV: But I don’t know what you are talking about! Aren’t you Debating me? Do you enter a Debate to win points from your own side? It is a CONVERSATION, in which you ENGAGE WITH YOUR OPPONENT. The job is to make ME nod in agreement. You have to try to change my views - on the basis of SENSE not nonsense, TRUTH not lies, EVIDENCE not assertions & slogans!
You say the evidence is irrelevant? Well explain how. You say I won’t understand? Well, if I can’t understand how a ‘confusion of issues’ makes looking at evidence irrelevant, it isn’t my case that looks bad; it is yours!
THE KNOWLEDGEABLE BEAVER!
THE DF: My goodness, deep down, Noble Beaver, it seems you know a lot about Debate.
• Is it just asserting your beliefs?
THE BEAV: No. Utter nonsense can be asserted! When does the asserting end? You put a stop to any asserting of nonsense by Debate - by exposing what is not true. Does asserting your beliefs move you to a conclusion? No. Insist on whatever you like - but now the Debate begins and you have to show that what you say is true, and sensible. And to do that you have to answer all the questions you are asked.
THE DF:
• Is it just insisting on what you believe?
Is it me exclaiming that I am right, you are wrong? Is it me saying this is true, that is false?
THE BEAV: No, no - saying it is true is not showing it is true. Get around to the reason for believing what you say (evidence, arguments) and then we can see what is what.
THE DF: Noble Creature, what a mouthful you have spoken! The PURPOSE OF DEBATE is just as you have said: TO ESTABLISH THE TRUTH ABOUT EVERY ISSUE TIED UP IN THE DEBATE, AS RAISED BY BOTH SIDES, TO LEAD THOSE PARTICIPATING ... TO SEE WHAT CAN BE SEEN BY ALL.
There are Canadians who know that we Debate to free ourselves, Together and Collectively, of false beliefs held on all sides of an argument. The National Hero knows this well, though he does need a little prompting.
I am, etc.
Next issue: THE WOLF