STEPHEN A., LET’S TAKE THIS ONE TO THE TABLE: WHEN DID DISAGREEMENT BECOME DISRESPECT?
America Loves a Good Debate. But Have We Forgotten How to Have One?
Stephen A. Smith has built much of his career around something Americans have always loved:
A good argument.
Not necessarily hostility.
Not hatred.
An argument.
Make your case.
Bring your facts.
Defend your position.
Let somebody challenge you.
Push back.
And when it's over, perhaps neither person changes his mind—but both understand the issue a little better.
That spirit is part of what has made ESPN's First Take such a recognizable part of sports television. Smith himself has said authenticity matters to the program and that the disagreement shouldn't simply be manufactured for the sake of saying something.
But somewhere along the way, something changed in America.
We stopped merely disagreeing with ideas.
WE STARTED DISQUALIFYING PEOPLE.
And this conversation is much bigger than sports.
LET'S PUT IT ON THE FIRST TAKE DESK
Here's today's question:
CAN AMERICA STILL DISAGREE WITHOUT HATING EACH OTHER?
Republican versus Democrat.
Conservative versus liberal.
Christian versus atheist.
Black versus white.
Rich versus poor.
Young versus old.
Men versus women.
Traditional media versus independent media.
Caitlin Clark fans versus everybody arguing about Caitlin Clark.
LeBron.
The Cowboys.
Trump.
Race.
Religion.
Immigration.
Gender.
Policing.
Education.
Pick a subject.
Sometimes it feels as though America can turn anything into a reason to despise somebody.
And social media hands everyone a microphone.
STEPHEN A. HIMSELF IS A GOOD CASE STUDY
Smith has increasingly moved beyond sports into politics and broader cultural commentary. CBS described him in 2026 as expanding from his prominent sports platform into political conversations, while Smith characterized authentic, unscripted debate as central to what makes his work effective.
And what happens when he expresses an opinion?
Some cheer.
Others become furious.
Some say:
“Stephen A. finally said what needed to be said!”
Others:
“Stephen A. needs to stay in sports!”
This week, the National Association of Black Journalists' criticism of Smith generated another round of public controversy over his commentary.
That raises a fascinating question:
DO WE REALLY WANT PEOPLE TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES—OR ONLY WHEN THEY ARRIVE AT OUR CONCLUSIONS?
That's worth discussing.
YOU DON'T OWE YOUR “SIDE” EVERY OPINION
This is where things become uncomfortable.
If you are Black, does every Black person have to agree politically?
Of course not.
If you are white, must every white person see every social issue identically?
No.
Must every woman think alike?
Every man?
Every Christian?
Every Democrat?
Every Republican?
Every athlete?
Every journalist?
Of course not.
Yet increasingly we behave as though membership in a group comes with an approved sheet of opinions.
Deviate from it and suddenly you're a traitor.
A sellout.
Ignorant.
Brainwashed.
Radical.
Woke.
MAGA.
Racist.
Communist.
Fascist.
Heretic.
Pick your insult.
Labels have become shortcuts that save us the inconvenience of actually listening.
HERE IS SOMETHING THE CHURCH NEEDS TO HEAR TOO
Christians are not exempt.
Sometimes we're every bit as bad.
Someone disagrees with our politics and suddenly we question whether they're saved.
Someone interprets a secondary theological issue differently and we're ready to remove their name from the Lamb's Book of Life ourselves.
Someone votes differently and we wonder:
“How could a Christian possibly vote for THAT person?”
Meanwhile the Christian sitting across the aisle is asking the exact same question about us.
Something has gone terribly wrong.
Jesus said:
“By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” — John 13:35
Notice what He did not say.
By this shall everyone know you are My disciples:
You win every argument.
BUT LOVE DOESN'T MEAN SILENCE
This is where some people misunderstand Christianity.
Biblical love does not mean:
“Never disagree.”
It does not mean:
“Every idea is equally correct.”
It doesn't mean:
“Truth doesn't matter.”
And it certainly doesn't mean Christians must sit silently because someone might be offended.
Jesus spoke truth.
Paul debated.
The apostles reasoned.
Scripture confronts sin.
Truth inevitably creates disagreement.
The question is not whether Christians should speak.
THE QUESTION IS HOW WE BEHAVE WHEN SOMEBODY SPEAKS BACK.
STEPHEN A. UNDERSTANDS SOMETHING THE CHURCH SHOULD UNDERSTAND
A good debate requires opposition.
Think about it.
First Take wouldn't be very interesting if Stephen A. said:
“The Cowboys are going nowhere.”
And everybody at the desk responded:
“Absolutely, Stephen. Next topic.”
Where's the show?
Debate requires somebody willing to say:
“Hold on. I disagree.”
Then explain why.
America desperately needs to relearn that skill.
Because disagreement isn't necessarily disrespect.
SOMETIMES DISAGREEMENT IS THE BEGINNING OF UNDERSTANDING.
SPORTS USED TO TEACH US THIS
Two teams walk onto the field.
They don't agree about who should win.
Their objectives are completely incompatible.
One wants Dallas to score.
The other wants Philadelphia to stop them.
One wants Boston to win.
The other wants Los Angeles.
Yet when competition functions properly, there are boundaries.
Rules.
Officials.
Sportsmanship.
At the end, somebody wins.
Somebody loses.
Then everybody goes home.
Imagine if we handled political disagreement that way.
INSTEAD, POLITICS HAS BECOME A TEAM SPORT WITHOUT AN OFFSEASON
For too many Americans, political identity is no longer merely about policy.
It has become personal identity.
Therefore, disagreement feels like an attack on me.
Challenge my candidate?
You're attacking me.
Question my party?
You're attacking me.
Disagree about race?
You hate me.
Challenge my religious beliefs?
You disrespect me.
Question my cultural assumptions?
You're my enemy.
That is dangerous.
Because once opponents become enemies, almost anything can eventually be justified against them.
AND SOCIAL MEDIA MAKES IT WORSE
Social media rewards reaction.
Outrage travels.
Nuance struggles.
A calm explanation rarely receives the attention of:
“YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHAT THIS IDIOT JUST SAID!!!”
Anger generates clicks.
Conflict generates comments.
Insults generate shares.
So gradually, we begin performing outrage.
We aren't merely discussing an issue anymore.
We're building an audience.
And when attention becomes currency, reconciliation can become bad business.
SPORTS MEDIA ISN'T IMMUNE EITHER
There is an ongoing debate about whether modern sports media has moved too far from analysis toward personality-driven argument and viral moments. Recent criticism of ESPN, for example, has accused the network of prioritizing debate and entertainment over deeper basketball analysis.
That criticism itself deserves debate.
Because entertainment isn't automatically bad.
Personality isn't bad.
Passion isn't bad.
And Stephen A. Smith's success demonstrates that millions of people enjoy forceful opinions.
The problem begins when volume substitutes for evidence.
Not only on television.
Everywhere.
SOMETIMES THE THREE MOST INTELLIGENT WORDS ARE:
“I WAS WRONG.”
Now there's a phrase that could break the Internet.
Imagine political commentators saying it.
Politicians.
Pastors.
Journalists.
Coaches.
Athletes.
Parents.
Husbands.
Wives.
And yes—
even sports commentators.
“I looked at the evidence.”
“I reconsidered.”
“I didn't have all the facts.”
“I WAS WRONG.”
Why have we made changing one's mind evidence of weakness?
It can be evidence that thinking actually occurred.
CHRISTIANS SHOULD BE LEADING THIS REVOLUTION
Romans 12:18 says:
“If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.”
That doesn't require abandoning conviction.
It requires controlling ourselves.
I can tell you:
“I believe you're wrong.”
And still love you.
I can say:
“Scripture teaches differently.”
And still treat you with dignity.
I can vote differently from you.
Disagree about economics.
Argue about immigration.
Challenge your interpretation of history.
Debate your favorite athlete.
And afterward—
WE CAN STILL EAT LUNCH.
America needs more of that.
LET'S MAKE THIS PERSONAL
Suppose someone disagrees with you about nearly everything.
Can you listen for five uninterrupted minutes?
Not while preparing your rebuttal.
Actually listen.
Can you accurately repeat their position afterward?
Can you acknowledge the strongest part of their argument?
Can you admit when they make a legitimate point?
Can you distinguish between:
“Your argument is wrong”
and
“You are a bad person”?
If not, perhaps the problem isn't merely America's polarization.
Maybe some of it lives in us.
AND HERE'S THE QUESTION FOR STEPHEN A.
Stephen A., you've spent decades making a living disagreeing with people.
Sometimes loudly.
Very loudly.
So here's one for the desk:
HAS AMERICA BECOME TOO EMOTIONALLY FRAGILE TO DEBATE?
Can we hear something we dislike without demanding that the speaker be destroyed?
Can a Black commentator challenge Democrats without being accused of betraying Black America?
Can he challenge Republicans without being dismissed by conservatives?
Can Christians challenge culture while remaining compassionate?
Can atheists challenge Christianity without ridiculing believers?
Can Americans debate race without immediately assuming the worst motives?
Can men and women discuss difficult cultural questions without hatred?
Can Republicans and Democrats admit the other side occasionally has a point?
CAN ANYBODY SAY ANYTHING ANYMORE WITHOUT BEING ASSIGNED TO A TRIBE?
I'd watch that episode of First Take.
THERE IS AN EVEN BIGGER PROBLEM
We're raising children inside this environment.
What are they learning?
Not:
“Defend your argument.”
But:
“Destroy your opponent.”
Not:
“Listen.”
But:
“Interrupt.”
Not:
“Think.”
But:
“React.”
Not:
“Investigate.”
But:
“Share.”
Not:
“Perhaps I misunderstood.”
But:
“BLOCK THEM.”
What happens to democracy, churches, marriages, workplaces, schools, and communities when an entire generation loses the ability to coexist with disagreement?
That isn't merely a political question.
It is a civilization question.
THE BIBLE SAW THIS COMING LONG BEFORE SOCIAL MEDIA
James 1:19 gives remarkably modern advice:
“Let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.”
Read that again.
SWIFT TO HEAR.
SLOW TO SPEAK.
SLOW TO WRATH.
Imagine putting that across the bottom of every television debate program.
Imagine requiring it before posting on social media.
Imagine practicing it at Thanksgiving dinner.
Imagine Congress trying it.
Imagine the Church demonstrating it.
We might actually hear one another again.
TRUTH DOESN'T NEED YOU TO BE CRUEL
Christians especially need to understand this.
If what we believe is true, we don't have to defend it through hatred.
We don't need insults.
We don't need humiliation.
We don't need to dehumanize opponents.
We can stand firmly upon Scripture while remembering that the person across from us bears the image of God.
Truth and grace are not enemies.
Jesus embodied both.
SO HERE'S MY FIRST TAKE
America does not suffer from a shortage of opinions.
We have plenty.
We have commentators.
Podcasters.
Politicians.
Influencers.
Pastors.
Journalists.
YouTubers.
TikTokers.
Facebook experts.
And that uncle who apparently solved geopolitics between breakfast and lunch.
Our shortage is somewhere else.
WE ARE RUNNING LOW ON THE ABILITY TO LISTEN.
And if we cannot recover that ability, eventually nobody will be debating.
We'll simply be shouting from opposite sides of a canyon that keeps getting wider.
STEPHEN A., HERE'S THE INVITATION
Keep debating.
Keep challenging.
Keep asking uncomfortable questions.
And keep allowing people to challenge you.
That's how meaningful conversation works.
But this invitation isn't merely for Stephen A. Smith.
It's for me.
For you.
For pastors.
Politicians.
Journalists.
Athletes.
Republicans.
Democrats.
Independents.
Believers.
Unbelievers.
Everybody.
LET'S LEARN HOW TO DISAGREE AGAIN.
Not weakly.
Not dishonestly.
Not by pretending truth doesn't matter.
But without hatred.
Without dehumanization.
Without treating every disagreement as a declaration of war.
BECAUSE THERE IS SOMETHING BIGGER THAN WINNING THE ARGUMENT
Jesus asked:
“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” — Mark 8:36
Perhaps we could borrow the principle for our conversations.
What have we accomplished if we win every debate—
but lose our compassion?
Win the argument—
but lose the friendship?
Defeat the opponent—
but damage our witness?
Go viral—
but leave another human being humiliated?
Sometimes victory is not getting the last word.
Sometimes victory is speaking truth and still being able to extend your hand afterward.
ONE FINAL QUESTION
Stephen A. Smith built a career partly because Americans enjoy hearing somebody say:
“I DISAGREE.”
Maybe what America needs now is learning what should come next:
“I DISAGREE WITH YOU—BUT I'M STILL WILLING TO HEAR YOU.”
Now that would be a debate worth having.
Stephen A.—
WHAT'S YOUR FIRST TAKE?
Pilgrim Outreach Ministries International
Your Feet to the Nations
🌎 Ministry: pomitaly.homestead.com
📚 Bookstore: thewilltosucceed.homestead.com
📰 Ministry Blog: joybells49.blogspot.com
@MENTIONS
@stephenasmith @FirstTake @espn @ShannonSharpe @RealSkipBayless @FirstTakeHerTake @CNN @FoxNews @MSNBC @CBSNews @ABC @NBCNews @TheView @breakfastclubam @cthagod @YouVersion @BibleGateway @ChristianPost @CTmagazine @joybells49
#HASHTAGS
#StephenASmith #FirstTake #StephenA #LetsDebate #AmericaLetsTalk #DisagreementIsNotHate #CivilDiscourse #RespectfulDebate #FreeSpeech #ListenFirst #ThinkForYourself #AmericanCulture #SportsMedia #Media #Politics #FaithAndCulture #FaithAndPolitics #ChristianWorldview #ChristianLiving #BiblicalTruth #JesusChrist #LoveYourNeighbor #James119 #Romans1218 #TruthAndGrace #UnityNotUniformity #SocialMedia #Polarization #CultureWars #RaceInAmerica #SportsAndCulture #SpeakTruthInLove #America #PilgrimOutreach #YourFeetToTheNations
Comments
Post a Comment