Why Debate Acts as a Key Factor in Evolution

Since the dawn of time, society has built itself up through a multitude of consistent patterns. At the crux of our evolutionary strategy, we find the conversation. As a frequent debater myself, I’ve been able to see the value in constructive discussion. 

Debating in modern-day society is generally looked at as an angry activity practiced by bigshot tv commentators to push a heavily biased narrative. However, the multifaceted impact of conversation is responsible for most scientific, social, psychological, and economic advancements. 

For the sake of visualization, let’s assume a scenario in which a sample human (A) has a lemonade stand. With steady, maintainable business and no competition, person A has nothing to worry about. Now, imagine that person A has a friend, person B. Mr. B, while being the best friend of A, decides to compete with his lemonade business. Without the competition of person B, Mr. A has no incentive to improve his stand. However, due to the controversy between the two perspectives, they’ll likely innovate a new product. This example acts as a parallel to the theory of debate! Only through having people question our opinions can we allow for the constant development of the human mind. 

Take science, for example. At some point, every universal truth has been questioned to absolute respect. The contention of ideas leads to two options. Firstly, the idea buckles under pressure. If a theory is not factually or logically sound, it’s unlikely to withstand the eye of criticism. Secondly, the idea continues to develop through research and analysis, cementing itself as a universal truth. The only way that we can come up with ideas that everyone accepts is by questioning them. Without being able to refute the refutation, your claims have no basis. 

In terms of science, the majority of controversial arguments are generally resolved with empirical findings. Without the clash, the study wouldn’t be conducted, leading to an unquestioned claim that could very well be false, wrongly influencing humanity. 

When talking about theory arguments, it gets a bit more subjective. However, debate isn’t limited to empirics. As a society, we have a nearly unanimous code of conduct. Without argumentative theory, there would be no laws, boundaries, or social structure as a whole. We follow the constitution because everyone can agree that citizens deserve a particular set of rights. Why? Because some time ago, two sets of values clashed, and ours came out victorious. 

However, universal truths are not exempt from criticism. The best part about the conversation is the idea that it can be applied to our society. Take the controversy on the 2nd amendment, for example. While the legislature acts in favor of it, that doesn’t make it illegal to argue against. There’s no harm in a collective debate. It always ends with a net gain of intellect. 

As humans, we want to advance. By continuing our curiosity, we will eventually evolve beyond our rational comprehension. Only by questioning our current state can we discover, propose, and enact solutions (which will likely be repealed or altered sometime into the future). Debate is not a competition, but rather a clash between two solvency parties looking for the most effective outlet.