Civil discourse is how leaders trade “winning” for real influence.

In college, I loved debate. I enjoyed the intellectual “game” of organizing facts and slicing through logic. I remember taking pride in the ability to argue and win either side of an argument.

Civil Discourse That Leads

Once, I argued with a roommate about something I can’t even remember now. He wasn’t as verbally quick. But I understood the point he was trying to make—and he wasn’t wrong. But, I was more interested in winning than understanding. So I did.

And I lost the friendship.

We were, literally, a house divided.

It took years to reconcile, and even then, the friendship never recovered.

I learned something important: You can “win” the argument and lose everything that really matters.

What I’m Seeing Now

I didn’t follow Charlie Kirk. His assassination shocked me, but I wasn’t personally impacted—until I saw the reactions of others. The mourning and vigils around the world have surprised me. But what has especially bothered me are the celebrations.

I don’t know enough about Charlie Kirk to have a well-formed opinion of him. But this article isn’t about him.

This is about us. It’s about what we think we’re accomplishing when we attack or cheer an attack on “the other side.”

We Think We’re Winning

Here’s the mistake I see us making: believing that political dominance—whether through verbal dominance, coercion, or violence—is how we “win.”

I’ve lived in the Middle East, the Balkans, and East Africa—places where killing someone for their political perspective is the process. It is the norm. As some say, “War is normal. Peace is the exception.”

Although many have forgotten or never been made aware of it – the peace we have enjoyed in the US is exceptionally rare.

What I learned in those environments is this: once violence enters the political bloodstream, it rarely leaves. It becomes the default method for holding power, not just seizing it.

So we need to understand something: if we go down this path, there isn’t a “win” at the end of it. For anyone. There are only cycles of escalation. Retrenchment. And loss.

The Difference Between Debate and Argument

The U.S. system was designed for debate. And debates require some basic agreements:

• People want to be in the conversation.
• There’s mutual respect.
• There’s a shared focus on ideas, not identities.
• People actually listen.

Arguments are different:

• They often aren’t voluntary.
• They quickly become personal and emotional.
• They drift into disrespect.
• People stop listening and start demanding to be heard.

Think of the last argument you were in. Maybe the last ten. How did those turn out?

Arguments don’t persuade. They cause people to harden in their views – even if they can’t win the argument.

Violence doesn’t convince. The Israelis and Palestinians aren’t out-persuading each other right now. It just entraps us in cycles of grievance and revenge.

Just Look at the Last Year

Here’s a short list of politically motivated violence in just the last 12 months:

• Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
• Minnesota Rep. Hortman and Sen. Hoffman and spouses shootings.
• CDC HQ shooting.
• Pennsylvania governor’s residence arson.
• New Mexico GOP HQ arson.
• Kamala Harris campaign office attacks.
• Israeli embassy staff murdered in D.C.
• Tesla infrastructure arsons.
• Two assassination attempts on Donald Trump.
• UnitedHealth CEO gunned down.

And that’s not counting the rest—bombings, threats, and attacks that didn’t make headlines for long.

What have these attacks achieved?

Nothing. Other than fear, anger, and deeper polarization.

Violence Doesn’t Persuade—It Entrenches

Violence within a population never persuades. I’ve watched Israelis and Palestinians bomb each other into emotional deafness. I’ve seen militias in East Africa wipe out entire villages—without winning anyone to their side.

Why? Because almost no one makes a values-based decision because they were argued into it. Most of our decisions—especially on politics, morality, and social issues—are emotional first. We rationalize after.

That’s not a bug in the system. That’s the neuroscience of decision making. It is the system.

If you want to influence someone, start with what they care about. If they don’t believe you understand, or care, or respect them, they won’t listen. They’ll only defend or attack.

So What Works?

Here’s what I’ve learned as a mediator: Nearly all of my mediations started out with someone saying, “I doubt you’ll be able to make anything work here.”

But…most people don’t actually want to stay in a fight. They want to be heard. They want to feel respected. And once they feel heard, and are treated with some respect, the temperature drops. They shift from defensiveness to curiosity.

And I helped them do this by helping them listen to each other. That was it.

Listening doesn’t mean agreeing. It doesn’t mean conceding. It just means understanding. Or at least trying to.

What I saw was that the people who did try to understand (instead of demanding that they be understood) were more likely to achieve both.

It wasn’t easy. It wasn’t fast. But over 90% of the time, they were able to come to an agreement.

That’s significant.

A Micro Answer to a Macro Problem

• Don’t engage recreational outrage. Don’t find ways to stir things up.
• Don’t try to “win” political arguments. You won’t.
• Don’t try to shut “the other side” down.
• Engage by listening. Not performatively. Actually listen.

Ask:

• What is it about this topic that matters to you?
• What is it about an approach or solution that you find persuasive?
• What have their experiences around it been?

And listen to their answers. Don’t argue. Even when they are uncomfortable. Even if you know they are flat wrong.

This won’t change everyone. But it almost always changes something: the dynamic. The pattern. The escalation.

And that’s what we need to interrupt right now.

We Are Near An Edge

This is not just bad discourse. This is how tribes form. How wars start. All of the casual talk about civil war or national divorce is not noble or revolutionary. It’s primal. And once it starts, it doesn’t stop easily.

We don’t need to agree on everything. But we do need to agree to talk. And right now, that basic agreement is under attack, from every side.

We can do better. But only if we’re willing to stop trying to “win,” and start trying to understand.

Start Here

Maybe you really didn’t like Charlie Kirk – ask someone who did:

• What was it about him that you valued?
• What was it about him that was compelling?
• How did his killing impact you? Did it cause fear? Anger? Confusion?

Or maybe you really respected Charlie Kirk—ask someone who didn’t:

• What was it about him that bothers you?
• What are you afraid would happen if his views went unchecked?
• What do you wish people who supported him understood better?

It’s almost certain that you’ll think that some of their answers are factually wrong. But nothing is to be gained by litigating that.

Or maybe you don’t want to talk about Charlie Kirk – these questions can help with topics across the board. The goal isn’t to change someone’s mind. It’s about changing the nature of your relationship.

That starts with listening. And that’s where real influence begins.

We don’t need less conviction. We need better conversations. That starts with listening.

Take good care,

Christian