A debate strategy that I learned a long time ago was that when your opponent is doing something unreasonable (e.g., trying to hog all the time, refusing to address your arguments) that the thing to do is point out what he is doing. This alerts the audience to the behavior he is exhibiting and leads them to think about why he is doing it. It also may motivate him to change his behavior.
I recently had two occasions to use this tactic on a couple of radio shows.
The first was on the KPBS stem cell debate. In this debate my opponent kept doing the "oh, one more thing . . . " tactic for hogging the airtime and preventing me from responding, and the host let him get away with it. This was unfair. At one point he said, "I don’t want to ramble on, but . . . " and I jumped in with "But you are. And at such length that I haven’t been given remotely equal time to respond," which I said while looking the host in the eyes, signalling that he wasn’t doing his job.
I started getting more time.
After the show the host tried to justified his mishandling of the situation by saying (off the air) that "from an editorial perspective" it was "justifiable" that my opponent got "a little more time" because he had to sell people on the stem cell proposition.
I responded: (1) It wasn’t a little more time, it was a lot. (2) That I disagree: Both viewpoints should be explored equally.
If I’m confronted with a similar situation in the future, I will add: (3) I didn’t know our purpose here was to sell the listener on his viewpoint. And I may even add: (4) And people in the media wonder why the public thinks that they’re biased!
The second time I had the occasion to use the tactic was on Seattle talk station KIRO. Guest host Allan Prell–an excitable leftist attack dog of an interviewer–had me on to talk about the voters guide. First, though he had me explain what an apologetics is, because he learned a new term when his producer told him my title. Most of the interview was pretty low-key because I kept sidestepping the inflammatory things he wanted me to say. Here’s a paraphrase of some exchanges:
PRELL: You’ve got these five non-negotiables in your voters guide–abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and gay quote marriage enquote. Who knew George W. Bush was such a good Catholic!
ME: (Reeling from the fact that the host has put to me an absurd statement rather than a question) I couldn’t comment on that one way or the other except to note the point of fact that he is a Methodist.
He then went on to accuse us of putting out a disguised endorsement of George Bush over John Kerry and I had to be rather firm with him pointing out that this was not the case and why it was not the case (e.g., the guide says not to vote based on party, the guide is a set of general principles to be used in all elections rather than just the presidential one, the guide was written long before the candidates for this election were known, and that we will be teaching the same principles long into the future).
He thanked me, and that was the end of my segment.
But then I got a voicemail from his producer saying that a question had arisen from their listeners ("Why wasn’t the death penalty non-negotiable #6?") and could I come back on the air to talk about it.
I did.
He put the question to me on the air and I said:
ME: The death penalty isn’t listed because it isn’t a non-negotiable in the sense that the guide uses the term. The Catechism of the Catholic Church points out that the state has the right to use the death penalty . . .
I was going to go onto to say " . . . but it counsels that it be used infrequently" but couldn’t because at this point the host FREAKED OUT and interrupted me and kept interrupting me each time I tried to finish the sentence. After repeated tries, I decided it was time to point out the host’s behavior.
ME: I’m sorry, but are you going to let me finish my sentence or not? Is that the kind of host that you are–that won’t let a guest finish a sentence? Do you want a serious answer on this or do you want me to hang up right now? [This was the first time I had ever threatened to walk out on an interview.]
PRELL: Well, I dunno . . .
ME: Well, while you’re thinking about that, why don’t I finish my sentence?
I did, and it got the interview back on track. Yet the excitable attack dog host wouldn’t take the fact that the Catechism acknowledges that the state has the right to use capital punishment (despite the fact that he declared "I’m not a Catholic–in fact, far from it"). He also would not take the fact that most people in world history have seen a difference between killing a guilty person and killing an innocent person.
At this point he turned personal again.
PRELL: What is your view of the death penalty?
ME: I’ll be happy to tell you the Church’s position . . .
PRELL: (interrupting) I don’t want the Church’s position! I want to know what you think!
ME: I’ll be happy to tell you the Church’s position, but it is a matter of my professional ethic that I stick to stating the Church’s position rather than advancing my own opinions.
PRELL: (hyperactive) Profession! What’s you’re profession???
ME: I am an apologist. [I had explained this in the first segment, one will recall.]
PRELL: (incredulous) You get paid for that???
ME: I do. And I try to be very scrupulous as a matter of professional ethics to state the Church’s position without putting my own spin on it.
PRELL: (mocking) Sounds to me like hy-po-cri-sy!
In fact, abandoning all pretense of observing normal ettiquite, he mockingly repeated this accusation of hypocrisy (at one point repeating it in a way that led me to think he was also accusing the Church of hypocrisy). This led to a second instance of my pointing out the host’s behavior.
PRELL: (mocking) Sounds to me like hy-po-cri-sy!
ME: (calmly) Sounds to me like you need a lesson in manners that your momma didn’t give you.
At this point Prell said thanks and hung up abruptly, ending my second appearance on his show.
Afterwards I got a voicemail and a couple of e-mails from KIRO listeners thanking me for my appearance on the show and telling me about how leftist the station is and how much ugliness followed both of my appearances.
I doubt I’ll be invited back anytime soon.
