I don't have too many republican friends but the ones I do have I hold dear to me. My experience with them and political debate usually parallels that of a tennis match where the dynamics of the dialogue impels one to protect their identity, raise a net and fire that ball as hard as possible; though with the length of the court, the net as a barrier and the two players too busy firing their best shot at one each other, "winning" a match only precludes an opponent to journey outside the contours of their respective political philosophies.
Consequently I am trying to reformat my approach to debate by admitting my bias while acknowledging theirs and then delineating the facts to be debated. My first guinea pig in which I can enforce this practice is a story concerning a Denver ballot initiative that seeks a municipal ban on circus-animal acts citywide. It is not that I am particularly passionate about this subject but driving in my truck today I imagined being a panel member debating the issue.
I would first state my bias towards the ban for the meantime stressing the importance for a tighter regulatory watchdog force over animal treatment. Without embellishing or spinning my bias with polished rhetoric I would simply list the facts on both sides and then stress why the cons outweigh the pros. I think its important that the facts be exposed first before the polish as to engage your fellow debater and to not repel the bystander audience.
This is the list I would first present:
1. Extremely unnatural living conditions for the animals such as their traveling frequency, their confinement to cages, forced performance for human amusement including the use of electric prods, whips, and bullhooks.
2. Circus industry officials, however, insist that their animals receive top-notch care, and face none of the hazards and hardships they would in the wild.
3. The objective isn't to ban circuses from Denver, but to exclude animals from being part of the act.
4. Circus officials posit that the circus is one of the few places that kids can see humans and wild animals working together. This can inspire people to care about animals and devote their lives to animals.
5. But the Humane Society's Farinato counters that the educational benefit, if any, comes at the expense of animals. They don't think it's worth the pain and suffering that can come through all the transporting, training, and performance of these animals.
This in a nutshell instills authenticity and credibility to an argument; acknowledging a bias while at the same time acknowledging why someone would have a counter bias. This seems very basic, elementary even but an insufficient amount of energy is being spent on how to debate and to work synergistically to reach an optimal outcome.