America has political discourse problem.

News hosts are telling athletes to “shut up and dribble” and a shooting survivor calling the NRA and its members  “child murders.”

These are some the insults that have recently been thrown around during political disputes on television that can vilify the opposing side and stop any chance at a meaningful discussion.

There are many polarizing issues that Americans cannot seem talk through without getting emotional. When this happens, facts and reason can go out the window and be replaced with passion. Some of these hot button issues are gun control, immigration and abortion.

People, politicians and political parties can have very strong opinions on these issues and do not want to debate and/or meet in the middle. Some examples are Republicans and Democrats have not agreed on a fix for DACA, deferred action for childhood arrivals, and Democratic Party Chair Tom Perez saying every Democrat should support abortion and that is “not negotiable.”

Because of this, “Dreamers” have no idea when or what legislation will come and former Nebraska mayoral candidate and “personally pro life” Heath Mello was most likely hurt in the polls and lost to Jean Stothert.

There needs to be more of an attempt by both sides to compromise and discuss. There is a feeling, especially in the millennial generation, where it’s better to go into a safe space or protest rather than let opposing ideas be espoused and debated.

Political Roundtable, a group of 20 students discuss current events and problems in the country or abroad. Recently the group had a productive and civil conversation about gun control and last year the group debated immigration and North Korea.

There was no name calling or personal insults.

That is how a political discussion should go. Talk about facts and debate the merits of both sides. The problem is a lot of people and students do not know the reasoning for each side.

It’s wrong how people do not like each other just because of their political views.

“You should keep politics out of people,” senior Ian DeRuiter said. “I heard Justice (Antonin) Scalia and Justice (Ruth Bader) Ginsburg they have complete opposite views but were best friends and I think America should be like that.”

Although this would ideally be how Americans would interact, it doesn’t happen.

What’s to thank for this issue?

Echo chambers and tribalism.

People nowadays, especially on social media, hear only what they want to hear.

This happens because on apps like Facebook and Twitter users can choose to not follow or block people with differing stances on important issues.

In addition, when Americans get their news from television there is almost always biased whether it be conservative (FOX News) or liberal (MSNBC). When a person chooses to listen to only one side of an argument they will just be confirming what they already think they know instead of challenging their beliefs. This is unhealthy and leads people to not understand both sides of a debate.

Rarely in political discussions are there people who are intentionally trying to harm the other side. Both sides generally think what they stand for is best for the country so it is better to understand what they are thinking and rebuke with facts rather than shouting insults. When exposed to differing opinion it can either make people stronger in their values or maybe even question what they believe.

So maybe next time Tucker Carlson is on change the channel to Don Lemon or if someone only follows people like Cenk Uygur also try and see what Ben Shapiro has to say. It will make America a better country where the best ideas rise to the top and everyone understands each other.