Bulverism

Eric Bush ('20)

There are two types of arguments. In one, debaters seek the truth; in the other, debaters seek to win. In today’s discourse, too many discussions fall into the latter. In his lecture entitled Bulverism, C.S. Lewis astutely outlines the formula for most modern political debates: “Assume your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet.” Contrarily, he warns that if one approaches an argument with an open mind to determine which side is true, “the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.”

Lewis’s observation is unfortunately accurate. Individuals are expected to take a position and fight for it. Critical self-evaluation has been replaced with self-validation. We tune out dissenting opinions and assume those who think differently than us are wrong or worse, bad people. 

I live in an apartment of three McConnell Scholars, all three I might add are active members of the debate society. We argue daily, primarily for sport. Though we don’t look down on each other, our discussions are certainly not centered on finding the truth; they are rhetorical battles. Lewis’s essay prompted me to consider that there are two, very different goals in debate – finding the truth, and finding victory. 

I don’t have a magic solution for healing the divide in our country. But we can start by considering these two forms of debate. When we enter political discussions, we must remember that our counterpart is likely a passionate, thoughtful individual who wants the best. More important, we must realize our position might not actually be correct and perhaps we have a thing or two to learn.

Eric Bush, of Louisville, Ky., is a junior McConnell Scholar at the University of Louisville, where he studies political science and finance.

-->