After watching a video by Amish, where he and Bhavna delve into Purvapaksha and Uttarpaksha and the art of debate, piqued my curiosity. It led me to explore the true essence of a debate. What is its purpose? How can we ensure that our debates remain anchored to this purpose?
Purpose of a Debate
Debates aren’t black and white battlegrounds of right or wrong; they are spectrums of perspectives. The real goal of a debate is to thoroughly understand the other person’s viewpoint. Every viewpoint is a mosaic of personal experiences, forming a subjective core that fuels our beliefs. In a debate, victory isn’t the endgame; understanding and respecting diverse viewpoints is. Of course, we might encounter opinions we vehemently disagree with, but that’s secondary. The primary objective is always to grasp the other person’s perspective. Then, and only then, can we make a moral judgment.
Debates often start with varied takes on a topic, but as we peel back the layers, they tend to distill into core dichotomies. These can range from “being pragmatic” versus “being ideal” to “science” versus “religion”. This post aims to guide you on making progress in a debate towards unearthing these foundational dichotomies and understanding them in depth.
Peeling Layers of Debate
If you’re reading this, you likely agree that the primary aim of debate isn’t to win but to understand the underlying dichotomies. Changing minds and making the world a better place, however one defines it, is secondary.
Principles of Purvapaksha and UttarPaksha
Following the principles of Purvapaksha and Uttarpaksha in a debate involves first thoroughly understanding and articulating the opponent’s argument (Purvapaksha) before presenting your own counter-argument (Uttarpaksha). This approach ensures a deep engagement with and respect for the opponent’s viewpoint at the same time ensuring a positive direction for the debate. By echoing the other person’s viewpoint before offering a rebuttal, you achieve several things:
- Clarity: You ensure you’ve fully understood their perspective.
- Validation: It assures the other person that you’re not just debating for the sake of argument, but you’re genuinely interested in understanding their point of view.
- Common Ground: This method psychologically fosters agreement on some aspects, setting the stage for a more amicable discussion.
Gradually, as you both align and agree on facts, the conversation naturally progresses towards the core subjective beliefs. This alignment is key to reaching the heart of the debate. Often, these core beliefs take the form of dichotomies like “Being Pragmatic vs Being Ideal” or “Being Religious vs Being Scientific.” and there could be many there. Let’s take the example of famous historical debates and understand what were the core beliefs which were driving their opinions
- Abraham Lincoln vs Stephen A. Douglas (1858): This debate revolved around slavery in America. Douglas’s pragmatic stance of “popular sovereignty” contrasted with Lincoln’s idealistic view against slavery’s expansion. More details , visit here.
- Nixon-Kennedy Presidential Debates (1960): These debates highlighted a clash between Nixon’s pragmatic approach to Cold War and domestic issues and Kennedy’s idealistic visions for foreign and domestic policy.
- J.P. Narayan vs. Indira Gandhi (1970s): In India, Narayan’s idealistic “Total Revolution” for social and political reforms contrasted with Indira Gandhi’s pragmatic focus during the Emergency era.
Conclusion
The essence of a debate lies in reaching each person’s core beliefs that drive their differing viewpoints. Conducting debates in a manner that promotes mutual understanding and respect is crucial. These core beliefs often manifest as dichotomies, especially in intellectually honest debates. Recognizing and exploring these dichotomies is key to truly grasping the depth of any debate.
Systemic Issues and Me 