Refection Week 3

I thought our debate about Machiavelli this week displayed some very interesting aspects of human nature and discussion/debate styles. All of us picked the side we agreed with the most as to whether we thought Machiavelli was mostly correct or mostly incorrect in his assessment of world politics. Then when Nate switched the roles on us and made us argue the opposite position of the one we had chosen initially everyone freaked out and looked around in a panicked fashion.

People naturally want to argue the position with which they agree but the skilled debater is just as capable of arguing both sides to an issue. In fact it is a sign of a great intellect if one is able to understand the arguments behind opposing views regarding a subject. This does not mean that one must agree with both positions or be ambivalent toward the issue altogether, rather it means that one understands how many views on a certain subject can have valid support. Especially when discussing something as personal as politics it is important to keep in mind that there are many perspectives on such issues and that all of those views can have a logical basis and therefore all be correct.

I thought the debate allowed us to explore aspects of the book that we had not considered before because we were reading with our own preconceptions in mind. However, once we had to examine the book from the opposite perspective we were able to see how Machiavelli could either be correct or incorrect in his analysis of politics depending on your perspective. Also, aspects of Machiavelli’s argument are extremely strong and parts are weaker. Each debate group glossed over the points that did not support their argument yet they had to occasionally address those issues when the other team directly confronted them.

I think that for the most part both groups did a good job at arguing the points that supported the case they were assigned even though that might not have been their personal opinion. This exercise allowed us to gain experience and knowledge in the art of argumentation, which is a critical skill in any discipline, but especially so in world politics.

Erica Peterson