Middle-ground? Never Heard of It!

Left or right? For or against? Pro or con?

There’s only two options.

Right?

From an early age, I was only taught two sides. I recall sitting in my 4^th grade class and being given a persuasive essay. It was about saving the whales or something. I remember telling my teacher,

“Mrs. Holcomb, I can’t pick a side. They both make sense.”

Her response was:

“Just pick one and write about it.”

So nine-year old me flipped a coin to randomly pick a side. Dissatisfied, I wrote an essay on why saving the whales was so darn important. Let’s fast-forward three years.

Now we have 7^th grade Andrew, complete with the pre-teen social awkwardness, acne, and everything. I was given a prompt I can’t entirely recall, but I remember this: it was stupid. Both sides of the arguments were poorly constructed and loaded with fallacies. I was skimming this prompt and thinking, “Man, I can’t wait to write about how stupid both these arguments are!” But then the teacher said, “Make sure you pick one side, you have to take one position or the other.”

It wasn’t until AP Language and Composition I was allowed to take a neutral stance. I wrote a paper about violations of the 4^th amendment due to the PATRIOT ACT. I got to write about the complex political climate surrounding the issue and the smaller nuances of the issue; all of this is lost in when forced to take a single position.

This aforementioned duality is discussed by Rebecca Jones in “Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic?” She writes,

 “While many pro and con arguments are valid, they can erase nuance, negate the local and particular, and shut down the very purpose of having an argument: the possibility that you might change your mind, learn something new, or solve a problem. This limited view of argument makes argumentation a shallow process. When all angles are not explored or fallacious or incorrect reasoning is used, we are left with ethically suspect public discussions that cannot possibly get at the roots of an issue or work toward solutions.” (64). 

Jones doesn’t completely discredit pro/con arguments, but rather highlights an issue of them. Perhaps you’re an environmentalist, but dislike the policy of allowing “clean air vehicles” into the HOV lane. You can argue that allowing electric vehicles into the HOV lane creates a classist system because those who cam afford electric cars, such as Teslas, are (generally) wealthier (however there are many cheaper cars allowed in the HOV lane which debunks this argument).

While the Tesla in the HOV lane may not be the strongest point, it’s an example of a nuanced issue which would be skimmed over in a two-sided debate. With only two-sides, our disgruntled environmentalist would upset because he/she has to support the entirety of environmental legislation, including policies which he/she doesn’t support. These small nuances can be critical to solving issues.

How do we solve this?

Uh we can’t really, in my opinion. The best we can do is be open to others’ arguments and hope they extend the same respect to us. This has worked wonders for me in my personal life. It's pretty incredible what you can accomplish when you don't start a debate by screaming at the other side.