Having The Wrong Debate

Choosing the right question matters

This morning I arose from my Bacta Tank and checked what new podcasts had been served for my delectation.

Flicking past Joe Rogan discussing the role gluons play in mediating the strong nuclear force with Dave Chappelle for 7 hours, I alighted on Alex O’Connor debating Michael Knowles. As you may know, I’m not really interested in debates. But I like Alex O’Connor. And I loathe Michael Knowles. And I wanted to see how it played out.

It was entertaining and informative in places. I had never heard of the Treaty of Tripoli. But at the end of it, my dislike of debates was even more firmly entrenched. It also told me something interesting about stakes.

Lets cut to the chase: The framing question for the debate is unhelpful. It’s a reasonable debate question in that it yields a “yes” or “no” answer. But the yes or no answer doesn’t mean very much. There are two obviously wrong answers:

• The traditions of Christianity had no impact on American history.

• America has always been governed by a Christian government and its inhabitants have always been uncomplicatedly Christian.

I don’t think either of those positions are defensible. To me a more interesting set of questions are:

• How did religious traditions influence the early European colonists of America?

• How did they seek to manage their own religious diversity while forging a nation?

• What is the religious make up of America now?

• How should Americans allow their religious beliefs to influence their public life?

These questions were frequently discussed by O’Connor and Knowles, probably because they are more interesting than the actual title question. But they are not debate questions. They are conversation questions.

The second comment to make is about stakes. While their debate focused mostly on the past rather than the present, Knowles repeatedly called into question (mockingly but not) O’Connor’s right to opine on this. Knowles is an American and O’Connor is British. But even more pertinently, O’Connor’s interest in this question seems to be mostly intellectual. He wants to have a debate. Knowles’ interest is far more material. Not only is he American and very publicly Catholic, he is a conservative media guy. Advancing the Christian Conservative Nationalist agenda is his job. This question is an existential one for him in a way that it isn’t for O’Connor.

Knowles’ entire career is based on ensuring that American is a very particular kind of Christian nation and saying so in the most inflammatory ways he can.

Should O’Connor have debated Knowles? He should absolutely have had a conversation with him. We should not avoid talking to people we don’t agree with. And I don’t think you can criticize O’Connor for “platforming” Knowles as the latter has an audience of millions already. But I think debating this particular question in this particular format was a mistake.

If only because the answer was always going to be boring.

I have this AI generated image because otherwise the thumbnail would be Michael Knowles’ face and I don’t want to do that to myself