Thoughts on sustainability and debate

Debate and Sustainability

      The idea that debate is good for students is not new. Innumerable researchers and news outlets have noted the beneficial effects that speech and debate skills have on youth, citing improvements public speaking abilities, research skills, and confidence. The term "critical thinking" is also thrown around a great deal as a substitute for specifically citing more quantitative improvement, but admittedly that's probably for the better; this is usually interpreted, when explained at all, as improvements in test scores, writing, analytical skills, and college admission rates. While not necessarily bad standards to measure debate by, they all seem very individual-centered; few seem to recognize that the skills gleaned from speech and debate do better things than simply help a student earn admittance to an Ivy League school or a place at a Fortune 500 company. Rather, debate skills will help save the world. 

      Sustainability has three categories for the principles that govern people's behavior. These are beliefs, norms, and values, three concepts closely related but distinctly separated from each other. 

     Values are personal principles that define what is important and what actions a person should take. They cannot really be "wrong" as each person thinks different things matter in varying degrees.

     Norms are shared senses of moral obligation that a group shares that guide their actions. These can be more abstract ideas of right or wrong and govern the behavior of communities, states, and nations.

     Beliefs are a person's accepted ideas about what is true or valid that determine their worldview and
opinions. These can be incorrect and are shaped by one's knowledge. If sustainable advocates are trying to change the behaviors of societies at a large scale, they start by attempting to change skewed and incorrect beliefs rather than anything else. 

      In essence, everyone has an opinion about the world that is shaped by these three characteristics, and each can cause major problems for progress. Sustainability might push for a mass adoption of solar panels, a reduction of United States discretionary spending, an increase in watchdog groups, or a permit system for coastal fishing, but all of those things could seriously conflict with the priorities or ingrained principles tht guide people's decisions. Each person has thoughts and ideals pressed upon them by their surroundings ; even when they reject those, their viewpoint is still skewed, albeit in the opposite direction.

      Efforts to slow climate change have been resisted for a number of reasons; one might say that a value of many people is not looking to the future when making decisions. This is the problem that sustainability fundamentally has; no matter how important an act may be to the future of the human race, some will likely be opposed to doing it. At a communal level, this can tank an entire operation that potentially was the only hope of survival for the area.

      So the real question is how we get people to change their opinions and be more receptive to unconventional thought. Considering that I spoke briefly on the benefits of debate, I think most people will realize that I see it as a solution to the question of solving the problems sustainability activists have. The easy answer that many might consider is that the world needs more people to argue for sustainable activism, one not wrong but also not necessarily ideal. High quality arguers tend to gravitate towards top-tier jobs, having the abilities and confidence to pursue whatever they like. Sustainable activism is not normally something they "like." But those who do join can't necessarily solve the problem either; emotions and feelings can do a great deal to prevent people from changing their mindsets, regardless of how clear the facts are.

      The answer is not located in immediately changing what people think, but rather in how they do so. If each person has a bias that could tank sustainability efforts, it makes sense to not address each individual but rather change the group as a whole. Debate does just that if done en masse. I mentioned critical thinking skills and want to elaborate upon them as debate radically alters how a person approaches thought. One might enter a debate career with certain bias and prejudices ingrained within them, but when forced to defend the contrary view and argue for positions radically opposed to their ideology, they are forced to question the veracity of their beliefs. One aligned with liberty may be forced to argue for the importance of the NSA, while another who identifies more conservatively may give a speech that supports some facets of liberal economic policy. That's not to say that the speeches they give are "correct" or that their original views are "wrong." Rather, they are forced to see that every position has some inherent truth to it, if only a truth motivated by a worldview that may be wrong or irrelevant in the wider picture. What this ideally leads to is a worldview instilled within them that questions every argument that they encounter. This doesn't mean a worldview where they believe nothing, but one in which everything they do believe is supported in their eyes rather than being a mere sentiment. The beliefs they have will be justified and everything else will be questionable, leaving them open to new ideas and approaches to saving the planet. This is why debate is important in relation to sustainability; it instills a worldview that few have that simplifies the entire progress process.

      To truly have choice, one must know what options are available, and debate helps open people's eyes to the unfettered diversity of thought that fills our world. The people more willing to question their surroundings will be the most effective in shaping our world. It certainly is possible that some sustainable efforts may be misguided or ineffective; smart individuals who question will notice this and help refine the decisions that policymakers and advocates examine and promote.

      Debate has a wide number of positive effects that most definitely benefit the individual. Simultaneously though, some of the richest effects it might produce in the coming years will be neatly centered on improvements to the world as a whole.

Citations

Marlow, W. Stage Fright. Flickr.com. 7 Jun, 2012. Photo. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/williammarlow/7350412202

Munroe, R. Wright Brothers. xkcd.com. 24 May, 2006. Photo. Retrieved from http://xkcd.com/106/

Talbot, B. Speech is Silver. Flickr.com. 6 Sep, 2006. Photo. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/b-tal/236503622