Avery Adelini is a biological sciences freshman and political opinion columnist for Mustang News. The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Mustang Media Group.
If you scroll through political accounts on social media, your entire feed might start to look something like this: “Woke liberal gets OWNED!” “Conservative DESTROYED!”
Fast, performative and built on humiliation, modern debates pit people of opposing viewpoints against each other. The goal of these debates is not understanding, but winning.
An argument is not a competition. Disagreements shouldn’t be treated as opportunities to defeat opposing participants, but as chances to better understand different perspectives and refine one’s own thinking. Instead, conflict can spark meaningful and thoughtful conversations when contributors enter with open minds.
Polarizing debates are so common that it feels rare to see two people disagree and get along. That’s exactly what drew me to a flyer advertising a discussion, “A Christian and an Atheist discuss (un)belief and finding hope in a chaotic world.” The speakers discussed “If God is good, why is there pain and suffering?” in Chumash Auditorium on April 27, open to anyone willing to listen.
The event was hosted by the Veritas Forum, an organization that hosts events designed to explore life’s “big questions” through dialogue between Christian faith and other worldviews. Veritas Forum brought together a Christian, Biola professor of apologetics Sean McDowell and an atheist, Cal Poly professor of jazz studies Paul Rinzler, to discuss the existence of suffering through the lens of each of their worldviews.
“My goal in a conversation is not to dominate or win a debate,” McDowell said to me after the seminar. “This is a conversation.”
McDowell’s goal wasn’t just rhetoric. The discussion section of the seminar was, to my surprise, thought-provoking and courteous. The speakers’ conversations built off of each other, and it was clear that they were considering the value of their opponent’s arguments when shaping theirs.
The speakers spoke civilly and without tension, acknowledging strong points and finding areas of both agreement and disagreement. Rinzler, the atheist speaker, even mentioned that a remark that McDowell had made regarding morality had caused him to rethink some of his own beliefs.
The audience, on the other hand, was not as accommodating. This was evident during the audience Q&A section of the session, where attendees could anonymously ask the speakers questions about the discussion. Many of these were not sincere attempts to seek clarification, but were instead phrased in a way that challenged the speakers.
Questions — such as “If God is real then why do wars happen?” and “So you think that murderers are good people because there’s no God to judge them?” — were designed to provoke the speakers and instigate an angry response. Rather than inviting dialogue, they reflected a desire to reinforce existing beliefs.
This reaction points to a deeper problem. When we treat disagreement like a threat, we become more interested in protecting our beliefs than examining them. We stop listening and start waiting for an opportunity to respond with a rebuttal.
The audience has rarely had its values challenged like this. Where the panellists are speaking from a place of much more research and logic, the attendees’ responses come from personal experience. This is where the disconnect comes from: the audience doesn’t want to consider an opposing point of view because they feel as if they don’t have to.
No perspective is completely foolproof. Every perspective is shaped by personal experiences and can’t fully capture the complexities of an issue. The more we listen to others and accept that our opinions may be flawed, the closer we come to a more complete understanding.
“I’m speaking from my perspective,” Rinzler said during the session. “It’s all I can do.”
Although we can only speak from our perspective, we’re capable of thinking outside of our limited experiences. This seminar has spurred me to truly consider the argument of those I disagree with. I’ve made a conscious effort to understand others first, rather than immediately challenging their opinions.
Conversations become meaningful when we acknowledge our views are inherently incomplete. Without openness, discussion turns into competition and hinders growth.
Real progress comes from compromise, curiosity and the willingness to consider ideas that challenge your own. It’s uncomfortable, but necessary.
It can be difficult to join a challenging conversation as both a listener and an advocate. The solution lies within respect and acknowledgement. Respect your opponent and opposing views and acknowledge that other perspectives besides your own exist. Be mindful of your tone, and ensure that your contributions come from a place of openness rather than defensiveness.
Enter discussions to gain understanding.Talk with people who disagree with you and attempt to expand your beliefs, not to dig yourself deeper into an echo chamber of your own opinion. It’s so easy to live in denial and cherry-pick ideas that will reinforce your views. This mindset is an obstacle to growth.
College is a place where you’ll meet people who are completely different from you. Take advantage of this by having uncomfortable conversations and challenging your beliefs.
Let yourself be wrong. Don’t lose out on this opportunity to grow by having a closed mind.