Argumentative

I've often been accused of being argumentative. I could not disagree. I do like to argue. I think, however, that our definitions are not the same.

To many, being argumentative means simply to be quarrelsome. To divide, drive contention or play the devil's advocate.

In debate, arguments are the facts (or assertions of fact) exchanged to drive a change in perception.

It has been said that people are not stupid, they are ignorant. It is our ignorance that drives most of the divergence between our perspectives. In America, where our school systems' curricula are locally driven, there is not a strong degree of common knowledge. That is one possible factor in our intractable debates.

A professor James Fishkin of Stanford University developed something called Deliberative Democracy. He directed or advised 22 deliberative polling events. In these events, a random sample of people were polled on contemporary issues. Using those as a baseline, the group would gather and discuss the issues and be provided briefing materials to educate the group on the issues in question. It was found that as the individuals became better educated on the issues and discussed them more with the group, their initial responses shifted to a more unanimous response.

I liked hearing people talk about their experience with deliberative polls in California recently...

This event was a wake-up call about how out-of-touch I really am from California politics.

I consider myself to be educated and relatively informed, but as a young, busy - VERY busy - mom who relies on Facebook posts for most of my news, I realized ... I was just totally disconnected from politics once the polls closed and the excitement went away.

Leading debate in a useful manner is my hope. Far from the current problem as outlined by political scientist Jacob Hacker...

The result [of ignorance] is a society in which wired activists at either end of the spectrum dominate the debate—and lead politicians astray at precisely the wrong moment.

Every economist knows how to deal with the debt ... But poll after poll shows that voters have no clue what the budget actually looks like.

When ignorance, hate mongering and fear mongering drive the debate we can only be driven farther apart far from consensus or valuable conclusions about policy.

As a really good example, we can find that raising the taxes and closing loopholes for people with large incomes is a necessary policy without first promoting hatred of the people affected.

I don't think of myself as a breeder of contention but rather a champion of clear rational thought. A promoter of honest debate. A fanboy of productive political debate.