Most of us learned in grade school that there is a right way and a wrong way to argue. We were told that name-calling is not polite. We found out that it is acceptable to disagree if we can come up with a good reason for our disagreement. We learned that sweeping generalizations and words such as “all,” “everybody” and “nobody” aren’t good support for arguments.
These rules still apply, but sadly, I think we’re forgetting some of them. When discussing the conflict in Iraq, it seems the only compromise between pro-war and anti-war debaters is that we agree to disagree. To me, that’s the beauty of living in America.
The Constitution of the United States guarantees that we are free to speak about our beliefs, even if our beliefs are in conflict with the current administration or are not shared by the majority of Americans. However, we should still be respectful in our rhetoric. Sadly, I think we’re losing sight of the respectful part.
The oversimplification of issues and blanket generalizations about people who hold certain beliefs are ineffective tools of debate and they show a complete disrespect for people who hold opposing views.
I left a class discussion on Iraq Tuesday afternoon with a sick feeling. To me, it seemed that very few peoples’ opinions were really understood, as they should have been, because we weren’t listening to each other as well as we could have. Judging some of the comments made during and after class, one would think the class had been divided into two groups, based on the oversimplified and extreme stereotypes that emerged. Group one was the feeble-minded, fascist warmongers who blindly and unquestioningly follow whatever the media and administration says. These people are accused of having yet to pick up a book or newspaper and rally around cries of “bomb Saddam.” Group two was the tree-hugging radical liberals who use lofty ideals and noble humanitarian goals to hide a lack of education. Apparently, these flower-toting hippies are utterly na?ve about the realities of the world and spend their days holding hands while singing “give peace a chance.”
Honestly, I have never encountered a single person who fits either description. I believe I am a fairly decent representative of a typical college student, so I’d venture to say that most of us haven’t met such individuals, either. So why try to use stereotypes to make one argument sound more convincing? We learned in grade school that we shouldn’t do that.
Often during debates war supporters and war protesters each claim to hold a superior level of education, a greater degree of rationality and a truer love of America. But who’s to say which group is correct? Neither group is, because the groups are based on opinions.
The reality is that the vast majority of vocal debaters are very educated and informed. I don’t know many people who are willing to speak up without having some sort of rational basis for their position. Granted, there are going to be a few ignorant or extremist people speaking up that haven’t put much thought into their arguments, but they are few and cannot be seen as a representative of many.
By holding thoughtful and respectful debates, great insight can be learned about opposing views. Such discussion reveals that most pro-war people are not power-hungry and bloodthirsty, they simply believe that we have a reason and an obligation to use military force to disarm Saddam Hussein. On the flip side, the majority of people who take the anti-war position do not passionately hate the government and do not completely scorn the use of military force. Instead, they would rather have more international support and would prefer not to strike pre-emptively. These are by no means the only positions taken, but conversation reveals these beliefs to be common.
Or consider patriotism and three different individuals. One person vows to defend the Constitution through legislative means and lives by the letter of the law. A second person promises to support the president simply because he is our president, no matter what his party affiliation or political goals may be. The third person couldn’t care less about politics and probably couldn’t tell you if the president is a Democrat or Republican, but he takes of his hat at a basketball game and softly sings along when the Star Spangled Banner is played before tip-off. Who among these three is the patriot: who loves America?
They all are, but each in a unique, individual and respectful way. No one person should be criticized because of how they show their pride in America, so long as their display of patriotism and expression of values is done respectfully.
The bottom line is that no two people will ever have the same opinion about war or patriotism, which should not only be expected–it should be encouraged. But each opinion must be heard and respected. To me, that’s the greatest liberty that we as Americans, particularly American college students, have: the capacity to speak, be heard, and learn from each other through discussion. I still cling to the notion that a great part of a college education is exposure to other beliefs and through reasoned debate, challenging one’s own beliefs and learning to see things from different perspectives.
Sharon Turlek is a junior studying political science.
