How to Help Students Debate Constructively

Nearly every seat in a lecture hall at George Washington University was full as a contentious debate began in a city known for polarized politics. The question up for discussion: Should the U.S. cease to aid Israel?

The perspectives reflected among the approximately 60 attendees last Thursday evening varied widely, but comments from both sides of the argument—pro-Palestine and pro-Israel alike—were often brash.

One student posed a hypothetical: Imagine a terrorist organization from a neighboring country invaded the U.S.; what would you expect the government to do? Another charged that their peer was reciting an elegant laundry list of unjustified humanitarian offenses. Offhand asides—including “no one’s that stupid” and “I’m one of the Jews”—filled the room.

Many observers would expect such comments to stir emotive retaliation. But throughout the more than two-hour conversation, not one person yelled at another. No one got violent. And no one stormed out of the room in a rage.

Instead, the intercollegiate crowd of students from universities across the D.C. area sat peacefully. Some nodded their heads in agreement, others in disdain. Many stroked their chins or scribbled notes in reflection. But the climate of the room remained civil.

It was exactly the development of tolerance and openness to new ideas that hosts from the College Debates and Discourse Alliance were hoping to see.

“There were moments when emotions were high, but nothing was pushed too far,” said Sadie Webb, associate director of the constructive dialogue coalition and moderator of the debate. “What we can see is young people want to talk about politics if you give them the space. In my opinion, this went pretty darn well.”

The event was co-sponsored by BridgeUSA, a student-led viewpoint diversity group; Braver Angels, a broader depolarization nonprofit; and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a right-leaning group that promotes academic freedom. Several other nonpartisan and bipartisan GW student organizations also cosponsored the event. Local chapters of ethnic and religious groups were invited to participate but declined.

Constructive dialogue events and curricula like this have been developed in response to the rising demand for both civic engagement and civility on college campuses across the country. The practice has been growing in popularity since Donald Trump’s polarizing 2016 campaign rocked the nation. But in the wake of fallout from last spring’s campus unrest and with anxieties about next week’s presidential election reaching a boiling point, many colleges have prioritized promoting civil discourse even more this fall.

In the first two weeks of October alone, BridgeUSA has hosted an all-time high of 75 gatherings and reached 1,583 students, according to data from the organization. But even in light of the demand and repeated demonstrations of success, Sophie Holtzman, a co-president of the organization’s GW chapter, was apprehensive that anyone could maintain a peaceful conversation about the conflict in Gaza.

“I honestly pushed back pretty heavily against doing this topic today,” she said at the debate’s conclusion. “As much as I believe in Bridge and in the Braver Angels debate style, I didn’t think GW was really ready to discuss this. But clearly I was wrong. Here we are.”

Setting New Norms

Students debated following a model known as amended parliamentary procedure, led by Webb. It began with statements from four preselected students, two who supported ceasing U.S. aid to Israel and two who opposed. Each was given four minutes to state their case before opening the conversation to question and response. Any student who wanted to ask a question had to do so through the moderator, addressing their peer as “the speaker” rather than by name or pronoun.

For example, a student could state, “Madam Chair, I know the speaker does not believe Israel is conducting genocide. But how does the speaker define genocide?”

The hope, Webb said, is to create a safe and “brave space” where all voices can be heard. “It can feel sort of odd at first, but what it does is really turn down the heat and depersonalize it.”

And it was difficult. Many students fumbled at first, collectively laughing out of discomfort as Webb quickly but gently corrected them. But then the majority of participants would apologize and try again. With each round of questions, students gained confidence, and more raised their hands, eager to participate. Others offered “snaps and taps” as subtle ways to support speakers without fully interrupting them.

Throughout the night, neither side of debate nor one section of the room dominated the conversation. Students with opposing views were scattered among one another, and, in a few cases, even complimented one another.

Addressing the statement, not the person, is just one of what BridgeUSA calls its four norms of discussion. The others include listening to listen, not to respond; not interrupting or having side conversations; and acknowledging that participants represent only themselves and not a group they identify with.

Jacoby Sypher, co-president of BridgeGW, believes that these standards are “incredibly crucial” to the success of events like this, as they set the tone and separate constructive dialogue from other forms of activism.

“The protests may cause the administration or the national news to take notice,” he said. “But the Bridge space … is where the real change starts.”

Sypher hopes that university administrators, none of whom attended the event, get on board and promote more dialogue groups like BridgeUSA.

“I can attest that a lot of administrations are incredibly terrified of hosting these discussions, because they’re afraid of upsetting students,” he explained. “These discussions are going to happen regardless, and maybe a BridgeUSA space, a trained moderator, an administrator, adviser or mental health professional, is the best way to go about them, because people aren’t just going to stop talking about politics.”

‘Hungry for Discussion’

Attendees generally agreed. Heading into the event, students and members of the public said they wanted to hear from others. They expressed cautious optimism that this was a space where they could do so without getting caught in the crosshairs of a screaming match.

Olivia Rosewarne, a senior economics major at GW, said it was her first time attending a campus debate of any kind. Her goal was to learn in a way that was “professional.”

Rosewarne’s friend, a senior studying finance who preferred not to be named, said she wanted to experience discussion about the Israel-Hamas war in person.

“A lot of what I’ve heard is online,” she said. “And a lot of what is online is the extremes.”

Ruthu Josyula and three of her peers came to GW from another chapter of BridgeUSA, across the Potomac River at George Mason University in Virginia. Josyula said her greatest hope is that when people arrive at a Bridge event, they “leave their party at the door” and listen with an open mind.

“We want to have a safe space and respect people as people,” she said. “I hope people hear other people out and learn about the why behind their beliefs.”

Over all, attendees said that was exactly what happened. Before dismissing students, Webb conducted a debrief and asked what they would take away from the discussion.

“I expected to see two distinct sides, but I learned the two sides are not monoliths,” one student said. “There’s so much nuance, and people can even disagree on the same side.”

Kiki Alexis, a GW freshman studying political science, said that though she could sense the tension in the room, she also detected understanding and empathy in a way she hadn’t expected.

“None of us completely solved the divide, but I expected there wasn’t going to be a resolution,” she said. “No one was taking jabs or being hostile. That was nice.”

Dylan Basescu, an alum of the university’s undergraduate program and law school, agreed, noting that though the conversation was contentious, it was also civil and productive.

“You can’t have conversations about a topic like this and not have them be antagonistic,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean it can’t also be constructive.”

Ross Irwin, a co-founder and executive officer of BridgeUSA, spent much of Thursday passing out fliers and encouraging students to attend the event. For the most part, students rejected his offer and didn’t give him the time of day. But by the end of the debate, his spirits were lifted.

“Here’s a secret,” he told the crowd at the conclusion of the event. “The reality is that people everywhere are very hungry for this type of discussion. They are eager for it, they want it, but they don’t know where to get it. And so I just have one ask of you: Go out to your friends, peers, colleagues and families and try to have these conversations. Create that space where respectful disagreement is welcome.”