The Honorable Purposes of Debate

An article mentioned by Dhamma81 on Dhamma Reflections got me to thinking about the purpose of debate.

Unfortunately for most people, the purpose of debate is "to win." In my opinion this is foolish. For me, the greatest value in debate come from losing, at least to some degree. Why? Because when you lose you stand some chance of learning something. Really you don't have to lose completely, but if you only "lose" in the sense that the other person brings up a valid point that you hadn't considered then you've gained something.

Recently I've been doing research for my Footsteps of the Buddha geo-biography project and for that reading The Buddha and His Disciples by Ven. Dhammika. One of the things mentioned pertains to debates.

At first the Buddha avoided debates due to tactics like that of one trickster who would show up early for a debate, tell the crowd that his opponent had failed to show, then proceed to trash his opponent for being too afraid to appear.

But gradually as his Dharma became more popular and began to be challenged or misrepresented by ascetics of other sects, [the Buddha] began to frequent debates. In fact, he was soon recognised as the most persuasive debater of his time. Certain rules governed the conduct of debates and the Buddha always abided by these rules and expected others to follow them also. When a young man named Canki kept interjecting while the Buddha was debating with some learned Brahmins, he turned to him and said firmly: "Quiet, Canki! Do not interrupt while we are speaking."[ N11 ] If on being asked a question for the third time a person could still not answer, the Buddha would insist that they admit defeat as was the rule.[ N12 ] Once he asked an ascetic if he readily believed in the view he held, the ascetic said, "I believe it and so do all these people," as he pointed at the large audience. The Buddha said, "What they believe is not the point. Is that your view?"[ N13 ] But of course the Buddha's purpose was not to defeat his opponents but to lead them to a clearer understanding. To this end he would often use what is called the Socratic method, so called because in the West it was first used by the Greek philosopher Socrates, asking clearer questions as a means of leading people to an insight or to prove a point. For example, once during a discussion, a Brahmin named Sonadanda proclaimed: "A true Brahmin has pure ancestry, he is well-versed in the sacred scriptures, he is fair in colour, he is virtuous, he is wise and he is an expert in the rituals." The Buddha asked: "Could a person lack one of these qualities and still be considered a Brahmin?" Sonadanda thought for a moment and then admitted that one could have a dark complexion and still be a Brahmin. Continuing to ask the same question, Sonadanda was led to the same view as the Buddha's, that it is not ancestry, knowledge, colour or social status that makes one superior but virtue and wisdom.[ N14 ]

So I'm afraid that I can't agree that debates are always totally pointless. Much of the time they are because you have nothing to teach, the other people have nothing for you to learn, and everyone involved is too childish to benefit anyway.

Perhaps the key is to use discernment to judge when a debate is worthwhile and when it isn't.

Another thing is to not behave as though you're just preaching and doing nothing else. Another important point from the previously quoted book:

When he met people strongly attached to their views and whom he knew he could not change, he would suggest discussing points of agreement so as to avoid fruitless arguments. At such times he would say: "About these things there is no agreement, therefore, let us put them aside. About the things on which we agree let us take up and talk about."[ N6 ] Sometimes rather than talk about his own Dharma he would invite his opponents to explain their teachings first. At a time when there was great competition and jealousy among different religions, the Buddha's fairness often caused surprise. Once a group of ascetics met the Buddha and their leader asked him to explain his Dharma. The Buddha said: "Better still, tell me about your teachings." The ascetics were astonished and said to each other: "It is wonderful, truly marvellous, how great is the ascetic Gotama in that he will hold back his own views and invite others to explain theirs."[ N7 ] When people asked a particularly appropriate or relevant question he would praise them, thereby encouraging discussion, questioning and inquiry. When Bhadda asked such a question, the Buddha replied, "Well said! Well said, friend Bhadda! Your understanding is welcome. Your wisdom is welcome."[ N8 ]

Perhaps we are not the Buddha, but we can still learn something from him when it comes to debate.