Why Debate the "Undebatable"?

Diving head first into the conversation "out there"

“You should know better!!!”

“You might as well be talking about Martians, because they have a following too.”

“This topic gives legitimacy to a made-up issue with no evidence.”

These are just three examples of emails we have received in the last few years commenting on the topics we choose to debate. We received several in 2024, when we debated Resolved: Let Trump run. In 2021, emails poured in when we discussed voter fraud and voter suppression in the 2020 election.

A similar email came to my attention this spring. The writer expressed concern that birthright citizenship was the topic of our then-upcoming debate: “Birthright citizenship is not a debatable issue,” he said “It is enshrined in the Constitution. It is time for you folks to stop pretending that Trump is a rational actor and his proposals are worthy of debate.”

There is a core value in question here. Are there some things so outlandish, unthinkable, or beyond the pale that they just shouldn’t be debated? This is a profound question—one we’ve even taken up in a debate of its own. It strikes at the heart of what civil discourse and depolarization demand of us.

Braver Angels has never been shy about engaging our nation’s most sensitive political issues, but why do we have debates on topics some consider “undebatable?” Why do we debate what we debate?

Allow me to let you in on a small secret—it’s not because we as individuals hold one view or another, and it’s certainly not because we are superhuman civil discourse experts. Many of us at Braver Angels, Red and Blue, have experienced intense anxieties about the direction of our politics and our country at one time or another. Our political climate is divisive and tense, and we are living through a moment where it can be tempting to draw a line between what we deem rational and what we dismiss as nonsense. It’s easy to want to retreat from difficult conversations altogether. Even those of us most committed to the Braver Angels Way can feel that temptation.

Our guiding values, however, require that we do not draw lines with regard to who is and is not worth talking to. Our mission demands something much braver: that we welcome opportunities to engage those with whom we disagree. That we speak freely and fully without fear about the most divisive issues of our time and treat others with honesty, dignity, and respect as they do the same. That we seek to disagree accurately, avoiding exaggeration and stereotypes. That we remain in the room—even when it is hard. Especially when it is hard.

The idea that birthright citizenship is not enshrined in the Constitution (or the idea that it should not be) is clearly not outside the Overton Window; that is, this idea is not outside the realm of acceptable political opinion. This conversation, and other similarly divisive ones across the political spectrum, are occurring whether any one individual likes it or not. The question is whether we can meet that conversation with courageous curiosity, rather than contempt. Can we lend it even the slightest bit of the Braver Angels Way?

At the 2024 Braver Angels Convention, Braver Angels’ own Mónica Guzmán reflected, “Out there we have political debates that feel like manipulative theater. In here, we have Braver Angels debates—designed to help us clarify what we actually believe in the first place, and what we truly disagree about.”

To use Mónica’s language, if it’s being debated “out there,” then I believe we have a responsibility to engage it “in here.”

Sometimes it’s uncomfortable—even painful. Yes, of course. Sometimes, as individuals, we have to step back, catch our breath, and give ourselves grace to not be our best Braver Angels’ self. That’s human. But as an organization, I believe we must continue to answer the call to engage these difficult issues.

At a time when genuine listening is rare and our politics are all too often reduced to shouting matches, engaging with viewpoints we find controversial is a powerful act. It is a choice that demonstrates that we can disagree and coexist, that we can have firm beliefs and still make space for others, that a healthier nation is possible. I don’t see our willingness to debate the “undebatable” as a flaw; I see it as a strength and a commitment—to one another, to bridging the partisan divide, and to building a more perfect union.

We will continue to step up to the plate and have difficult conversations. We won’t always get it right, but we will always dive head first into challenging issues.