Kick the ball, not the player: The discipline of debating

A healthy debate is not a contest to determine who can humiliate the other person. It is an opportunity to test ideas, expose weaknesses in arguments, introduce new perspectives and, ultimately, arrive at a better understanding of an issue. The central discipline of any meaningful debate is therefore simple: deal with the issue, not the person advancing it. In the language used by our former President, kick the ball, not the player.When a person presents an argument, the substance of that argument should become the subject of examination. Is the evidence credible? Is the reasoning sound? Are the assumptions reasonable? Are there facts that contradict the position? Are there alternative solutions? These questions elevate debate. The identity, personality, appearance, background, social status or personal characteristics of the person making the argument are largely irrelevant to whether the argument itself is valid.Unfortunately, debates can easily deteriorate when people cannot defeat an argument intellectually and instead attempt to discredit the person making it. Rather than answering the point, they mock the speaker, ridicule their personality, question their intelligence or bring unrelated personal matters into the discussion. This is not strength in debate. It is often a sign that someone has lost an argument and wants to save face, or persuade others to discredit the person, instead of the issue at hand. That often reflects intellectual poverty and a weak, malicious character. It is best to steer clear of such characters, as there is no honour with them. Consider a workplace discussion about whether an organisation should introduce a new operational system. One employee may argue that the proposed system is too expensive and provide financial projections to support the position. Another employee may respond, “You always complain about everything,” or, “You are not qualified to talk about finance.” Neither response addresses the financial argument. The appropriate response is to examine the figures, challenge the assumptions, present alternative calculations, or demonstrate why the proposed expenditure is justified. The ball is in the argument. Kick the ball.Strongest reasoningThe same principle applies in politics, academia, business, community leadership and everyday conversations. If someone argues that a particular policy will have unintended economic consequences, the response should examine those consequences. If someone proposes a different approach to education, the discussion should focus on the merits and limitations of that approach. If someone raises concerns about organisational governance, the response should address the governance issue rather than attempting to embarrass or discredit the individual who raised it.An important intellectual principle is also at stake: the best idea should be allowed to win. An idea does not become wrong because it comes from someone we dislike, just as it does not become correct because it comes from someone we admire. After all, it comes from someone we admire. Intellectual maturity requires us to separate the message from the messenger. Sometimes a person we disagree with may make an excellent point. Sometimes someone we respect may make a poor argument. The objective of serious debate should be to identify the strongest reasoning, regardless of who presents it.Mocking or humiliating someone for raising a difficult or uncomfortable point is particularly dangerous. It can create an environment where people fear speaking honestly. Once people learn that challenging the dominant view will expose them to ridicule or victimisation, they may choose silence over contribution. Organisations, institutions and societies then lose something invaluable: the diversity of ideas necessary for improvement.Vigorous disagreement is not wrong. Strong arguments should be challenged strongly. But there is a profound difference between challenging an argument and attacking its author. The former strengthens discourse; the latter diminishes it.A good debater should therefore ask: “What exactly is the issue being raised, and have I answered it?” If the answer is no, then the debate has not yet been won—regardless of how clever the insult, sarcastic the remark or entertaining the humiliation may have been.Ultimately, debate should be a search for better answers, not a competition for personal dominance. We should challenge assumptions, scrutinise evidence, expose weaknesses and propose better alternatives. Let arguments compete on their merits. Let evidence speak. Let reasoning prevail.Kick the ball, not the player. Attack the argument, not the individual. And when the debate is over, let the best argument—not the loudest voice, the sharpest insult or the most effective humiliation—win.Iipumbu Sakaria is a Namibian and writes in his personal capacity.

Kick the ball, not the player: The discipline of debating

Comments

Namibian Sun 2026-10-05

Please login to leave a comment

Kick the ball, not the player: The discipline of debating

Comments

Namibian Sun 2026-10-05

Please login to leave a comment

Subscription Required to Access Content ×

Login

Subscription Required to Access Content