On October 19th, this past Thursday, I attended the Stockton Democrats vs. Stockton Republicans Debate. I would like to applaud the efforts of both the Democrats and the Republicans who got up and argued for their party’s ideals. I know from personal experience that debating is hard, as it requires a broad knowledge of many topics and the ability to efficiently get your point across in the time given. Both sides did a good job in eliciting their side of the argument and made some very interesting points concerning the topics at hand.  

The issues I had with this debate stemmed largely from my involvement in the debate team at my high school, where I was given a resolution a few weeks before a debate, but not a position. My position I would receive the day of the debate, so I was forced to understand both the affirmative and the negative sides of the argument, and the strengths and weaknesses they had. I understand that this was not a competitive debate, but my point is that those rules forced me to do research in a nonbiased way, without opinion clouding the big picture of the argument.

Coming to this debate, I had expected the same of both the Republicans and the Democrats, but as it progressed, I became increasingly aware that both sides had an underlying and deep-rooted I’m-right-you’re-wrong attitude that prevented them from understanding the weaknesses in their own arguments. At which point, I felt like I was watching the 2016 Presidential Debates all over again.

Towards the end, there was some campaigning for the upcoming election, which I didn’t think was the point of this debate, nor was it very appropriate. Debates are for unbiased discussion, rallies are for campaigning.

The takeaway from this debate, I think, is a tragic one. Tensions rise and tempers steam in politics all around us. It’s everywhere—in the news, on our Facebook feeds, in dialogue between our friends, and yes, in our very own Stockton debate. From what I saw, neither side displayed a bipartisan understanding of the topics and neither were fully aware of the validity of their opponent’s argument and the fallibility of their own. In their emotionality, aggression, and campaigning irrelevant to the resolution, I see a microcosm of American politics. Americans have become so adherent to their own beliefs that those in disagreement are no longer valid, and there is no longer an in-between. It is tragic that at our own Stockton University, we have come to portray this very polarization of American politics.

I was looking for a quote by a founding father to conclude this blog post and found something else instead: a quote from Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird. In the words of the character, Judge John Taylor, “People generally see what they look for, and hear what they listen for” (Lee 232). Maybe the way to reunite our divided sides is to see more than what immediately agrees with our opinion and to listen to people with opposing views through an informed and objective lens.