Why You Should Look at Toastmasters Debate Clubs

We’ve all been there. That discussion that you want to have, that we need to have. Whether it’s politics, society norms, or the intrinsic value of moosetracks ice cream – you want to discuss it. You want to explore it with friends, family, or the person in front of you at the ice cream stand. You want a debate – an honest-to-goodness discussion with facts, explanations of why these facts are important and the impact of the topic on the world – ok, your ice cream choice. You want a debate.

Debate often has a bad smell to it. In the US, we have these abominations called “presidential debates” which are nothing more than people slinging sound bites at each other for the media. Then we have the current “social media” debate, which appears to focus on insults and accusations.

Whatever happened to civil discussions? Have we lost the ability to have them?

Today on Toastmasters 101, we’re going to talk about an increasing need for the ability to communicate with discussions where people don’t agree, and a terrific rise in the Toastmasters grassroots community to discover the power of debate.

INTRO

Do you want to find your voice and change the world? Then Toastmasters is for you. In one hour a week, we can teach you how to develop your public speaking skills and your leadership skills to have an impact on the world. This is Toastmasters 101, and I’m your host, Kim Krajci.

Debate vs. Discussion

Let’s start out by saying: moosetracks is a flavor of ice cream in our area. I have no idea if you’re familiar with it. Locally, it has fudge swirled into vanilla ice cream with peanut butter and chocolate candies mixed in. For me, that’s one too many ingredients. I don’t disapprove of people eating it, I’m just kinda… not sure why people like it.

It’s not a very debatable topic. Discuss, yes, and certainly we can agree to disagree.

People can disagree. Will disagree. It’s the nature of human nature and free will. People can disagree about almost everything, not just about taste. I may believe a certain policy will achieve a goal. That doesn’t mean I get to assume that the person who disagrees with that policy I prefer is a person who is evil or bad or doesn’t deserve respect.

Let’s define our terms. (That’s a debate joke – you’ll get it in a minute)

I like the Heritage Dictionary’s definition: Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation. I think that a discussion allows each participant to free-range around a topic: to look at the topic from several perspectives and to concede the other’s points as we come to an agreement. That doesn’t mean that a discussion is going to end on agreements.

I want to make it clear: I don’t see disagreement as a bad thing. I see it as a human thing. It’s how we treat each other in the discussions th...