In a time of increasing political polarization, many people feel that productive political debate can help bridge the gap between dissenting parties. Yet, how do we make debates more productive? To answer this question, we examined the underlying forces that shape debate in American society. We found that a combination of three forces-the salience of online debates, the amplification of negative content online, and the negativity bias in human information processing-have warped Americans’ perceptions of not only how often debate occurs, but also how it takes place.
For example, Americans tend to believe that debates are mostly hostile, a view that reflects an underlying attitude of contempt for the opposing side. As a result, this false perception shapes the ways people engage in debate. In addition, the ferocity of political debate far exceeds the level of knowledge that can be generated about the problem and potential solutions, and this leaves participants feeling unsatisfied after a debate.
A key insight is that we need to reframe how we think about political debate. Instead of thinking of it as a zero-sum competition, we need to see it as an opportunity to understand other people and their underlying interests. Then, we can find common ground on which to build a mutually beneficial solution.
For candidates, this means ensuring that they have three critical themes clearly defined for the audience: who they are, why they’re running, and what their vision is for the future of the country. This will ensure that they don’t waste their nine minutes of speaking time by veering off-topic or addressing issues that don’t resonate with voters.