Debate

Hands down my favorite activity in the world is debating. In reality, it doesn’t matter what I’m debating, as long as it’s relatively interesting and can be approached from a few different angles. However, I’ve found that the more time goes by, the less inclined I am to actually engage people in a rousing debate. Why is that?

Probably part of it has to do with the fact that for the last four months I’ve basically been sitting in a room by myself. I was writing, applying to grad schools, editing video, and sometimes just wasting time. However, do that long enough and your social skills are bound to suffer.

Yet, if deteriorating social skills can partially explain my waning motivation to debate, a bigger reason might be my writing itself. In the last six months or so I’ve started this blog, begun writing for Rhombus Magazine, and (as of a few days ago), become a features writer as the Daily Herald.

All this writing takes a lot of time, but it has also changed the way I think about issues. Whereas in the past I’ve been content to debate an issue with someone, each side making logical points that emerge from pre-existing knowledge, I’ve come to see that approach as frustratingly uninformed. As a result of all the writing I’ve been doing (and just because I’m a news junkie) I spend hours and hours reading different websites, newspapers, and commentary. Consequently, when I casually debating something I can usually recall specific articles that I’m drawing from. I typically want to “cite my sources” as a way to prove that my points are valid (which, admittedly, might be a rhetorical cop-out).

For example, Laura and I frequently go to dinner at my parents’ house on Sunday evenings. On one of our recent visits someone mentioned that the “United States was the country with the most opportunity in the world and the highest standard of living.” Debate often ensues at these dinners, and my dad and I found ourselves taking up opposing positions on this topic; he supporting it, and I opposing.

After a few minutes however, I began to be frustrated because all the supporting evidence seemed to be abstract ideas about patriotism (i.e. opinion with no supporting evidence). On the other hand, I could recall dozens of articles discussing how the U.S. has lower life expectancy than most the world, lower happiness, worse health, high unemployment, no health care system to speak of, etc., etc., etc. In the following days I actually posted a whole bunch of links to news articles and Wikipedia entries supporting my position on my dad’s Facebook page. My point: if the U.S. has fallen behind in every quantifiable way, it doesn’t make sense to keep saying it’s the best. (And by extension, we need to make changes.)

Similarly, last time Laura and I went to dinner global warming can up and the point was made that because the recently stolen emails revealed fudged numbers global warming was a myth. Now to me this simply seemed absurd; it’s like saying that if we found out Newton was a phony there is no gravity. Regardless of Newton’s honesty, someone only has to look around to realize that gravity does indeed exist. However, more to the point I’ve read extensively about global warming and despite the stolen emails there is still scientific consensus on it.

I bring up both of these issues not because I’m trying to debate them here, but to demonstrate that a casual debate simply isn’t going to work in these instances. My family members are good debaters, but without any hard evidence their points simply seemed like uniformed opinion (as mine probably did to them). What's more, in a conversation around a dinner table its really hard to actually have any hard evidence. I could certainly be swayed on either issue, but for that to happen I’d have to see some clear evidence that I’m wrong. Simply insisting that global warming is a myth, or that American is a land of opportunity, isn’t enough. It doesn’t bring anything new to the table and is wholly inadequate in the face of so much readily available information.

My conclusion is that verbal debate among friends and family is typically a fruitless endeavor because it so often fails to incorporate evidence into the argument. In the end, it’s just people’s opinions and both sides can always question the reliability of “facts” recalled from memory. Unlike a scientific study or even a newspaper article (which should cite studies), the evidence available to people in a casual debate is pretty shaky. On the other hand, if people actually want to understand an issue (or persuade others about it), it is important to “cite sources,” which is easier done online where it’s possible to link to actual evidence.

I still love debate for the sake of debate (and for the sake of sharpening my rhetorical skills). However, I think that the Internet (and in my case my writing/research) has emphasized to me the importance of debate supported by mutually accepted “facts.” Hopefully that means that as our lives become increasingly digital, our debates become more intellectually rigorous.

College Parking/Environmental Responsibility

The Provo-Student Alliance has recently received a fair amount of attention and press for its efforts to involve students in local activities.  While it’s genuinely exciting to see another organization getting students more involved, this particular group is wrong about the very idea it was founded to protect: student parking. 

 

Like many college towns, Provo has serious parking problems.  The streets are filled with student cars, which I know frustrates permanent residents.  Related to (or possibly stemming out of) this conflict, Provo city has recently pushed a plan to require permits for students to park immediately south of campus.

 

The goals of the students fighting for the right to park near campus are understandable, but also painfully near-sighted.  For one, simply maintaining the status quo will merely postpone inevitable conflict; students will continue to park in increasing numbers on the streets, while residents get angry and city leaders eye student pocket books.  This isn’t going to change, especially since BYU slowly increases its enrollment over time.  More importantly however, the Student-Provo Alliance is arguing in favor of an activity that is environmentally destructive and practically unnecessary.  Driving pollutes, and student cars are typically among the oldest and dirtiest on the road.  Accordingly, advocacy of student parking implies advocacy of student driving and, subsequently, of student polluting as well.  Though I doubt that many in the Provo-Student Alliance think of the issue in these terms, their agenda will cause lasting and harmful collateral damage to the environment by fighting the curtailment of a destructive activity.  Ultimately then, when considered in terms of environmental impact, the students are on the wrong side of the debate when they argue that their own convenience trumps greater responsibility to the environment.

 

While I suspect that the motivation behind the permit proposal was ill-conceived and largely an exercise in resentment directed against students, the ultimate result of the idea—fewer cars on the streets—is a desirable one.  If students are required to buy parking permits, fewer of them will be willing or able to park (though I’d like to see the plan altered to not blatantly favor rich students over poor ones).  In the short-term this will create frustration, late nights looking for parking, missed classes, and a multitude of other hardships for students.  Basically, it’ll be rough.  However, as current students begin to graduate and move on (and take their cars with them), the lack of parking will become simply one of many other considerations new students have to think about.  With no place to store cars, fewer students will be able to bring them in the first place.  More people will have to walk, bike, or use public transportation.  The city will have to adapt planning and zoning practices to a populace that can only travel a few miles, as opposed to one that drives everywhere.  With time (at least five or six years, though maybe as much as a generation), the hardships immediately following the permit plan will recede, having become merely growing pains during a time of change.      

 

If the Provo-Student Alliance really wants to help students, it might pause to consider what will be most beneficial to students in five, ten, or fifty years.  Unfortunately, driving isn’t that thing. In addition to the many wonderful things that this organization is now doing (things like voter registration drives), it should shift its focus toward reducing students’ need for driving.  For example, the Alliance could petition the city for mixed residential and commercial zoning that would allow students to work and play closer to where they live.  For it’s part, Provo city could explain their proposals in better terms that demonstrate a benefit to students as well as residents (in the end, the problem with this most recent plan wasn’t so much the idea itself as it was the fact that its branding left it reeking of prejudice).  If that happens it’s likely that both long-term residents and students alike will assume greater responsibility for their shared community and our environment.

Commuting/A Big Problem

One of the best things we could do as a country is reduce the time we spend commuting.  Of course this would require people to adjust their priorities, but in the end it would result in more free time, better environmental conditions, and a general increase in the standard of living. 

 

People commute for a lot reasons but one of the most common seems to be home prices.  While the American dream apparently includes homeownership, most people tend to find cheaper homes farther from their places of work.  Right now, for example, I live in Utah and it’s much cheaper to buy a house in West Jordan than it is in downtown Salt Lake City or even Sugar House.  Both Laura and I grew up in Southern California and the situation is even more extreme there.  Either you live in a “rougher” neighborhood in the city, or you live in a suburb and drive into town.  (L.A.’s notorious traffic leads me to believe that everyone in Southern California lives quite a distance from their places of work).

 

Another big reason people commute is schools.  When my family moved to Utah, for example, they chose to live farther from my Dad’s work so that the kids could attend the better school.  I can’t argue with the numbers that say which school districts are better, but I do question just what “better” means.  Obviously if you’re choosing between Glendora (where I grew up) and Compton,“better” probably means fewer gangs and drug problems.  On the other hand, if you’re choosing between Provo and Alpine, “better” apparently means a more homogenous student body.  In any case, many people aren’t choosing between a great school district and a terrible one.  Instead they’re choosing between an okay district and a slightly better one.

 

There are a lot of other reasons that people commute, but in the end I haven’t found any that are particularly compelling.  If you’re buying a house, a smaller, more centrally located home could be just as satisfactory.  For that matter an apartment could also probably work.  The point is that we could shift our values so that they no longer include big houses (that sit empty while we drive around all day).  The same goes for schools; we could choose to attend schools with slightly lower rankings and accept the fact that the degree to which a child succeeds at school mostly hinges on the home environment.  Better yet, we could try to improve the communities and schools closest to where we spend most of our time. 

 

Ultimately, whether people choose to shorten or eliminate their commutes for altruistic reasons or not this problem needs to be addressed.  I suspect that people would be generally happier if they weren’t in their cars so much.  Even if that’s difficult to prove, the environmental impact of commuting is not.  Just because a person rakes in a decent salary doesn’t mean that they should have the right to pollute at will.  (I don’t care what kind of car you drive it still pollutes more than walking or biking.)  Instead, I suggest we invest in our happiness, our future, and the future of our planet and start living closer to where we work.