How to Argue
I applaud the men (and occasional women) frequenting AOM for their civility. I imagine it's because we all feel bound by a certain "code" that requires us to treat each other with respect. That's awesome. But I believe the whole point of AOM is to encourage everyone to take that "code" and apply it outside of this community.
Now, it's easy enough to be a gentleman when engaged in a discussion with other gentlemen, but what if you're talking to a grade-A jackass?
Here are my own rules for a political discussion, mostly based on the premise that the passion of the advocate is not a factor in the merit of the argument. It's also based on the premise that the Socratic method is the best way to tear apart an argument (even if it is a woefully inadequate way of teaching law).
1. Assume that you will NEVER, EVER convince your opponent. You may actually end up doing that, and you can certainly hope for it, but do not expect it and do not argue like that's your goal. Do not go into a discussion like it's some kind of fight, because all that can do is create discord and friction.
2. Always remember that a primary goal of any discussion should be solidifying your own ideas, not changing the other guy's.
3. Respond to points you disagree with by asking questions. For instance, the other day I made a (rather strong, I thought) point in a discussion, and my counterpart asked me exactly how old I was (presumably so he could discount my argument by highlighting how he has 15 years more life experience that me). So I told him my age, and asked him "And what if I were 15 years older than you?"
4. Avoid name-calling, hyperbole, interrupting, or other forms of non-logical "heat." Keep the moral high ground, keep your composure. This is a chess match, not a street fight. When he takes your bishop, you do not put him in a headlock.
5. This is crucial: ACKNOWLEDGE THE STRENGTHS OF THE OTHER GUY'S ARGUMENT. You appear more reasonable to your opponent (and thus, a person whose opinion may matter) and you end up with a more detailed (and sound) position of your own.
6. KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. Seriously. Most people just talk out of their ass, and don't know a damned thing about what they're talking about...and gentlemen are not immune to ignorance. For a second, imagine an argument between Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann. Now imagine a conversation between people who rely solely on those two guys for their opinions. That's what most arguments are now, passionate opinions with no critical thinking to support them--"bumper sticker arguments."
7. Argue like there's an audience, a referee, or a judge. Think of the opposition as merely a means to convince someone ELSE of your opinion. You already know this, even if you're not fully conscious of this. I mean, any argument on an internet forum is likely to have an audience, and I can tell you I will almost NEVER side with the guy who resorts to cheap shots.
8. Never inform your opponent of what he thinks. He knows damn well what he thinks. Go ahead and clarify his position by asking him, 'Okay, so what your saying is A, B, and C, is this correct?" You want to point out an inconsistency? Go ahead and ask him, "Well, given your position that A, B, and C, what if D?"
9. It's actually much easier to coax out of him a statement that is in line with your position. You can't expect the other guy to say, "I agree with your point. You have bested me in this battle of wits."
10. The FDA and drug companies are not enemies. A football coach and his team are not enemies. A book editor and an author are not enemies. The challenges posed are there to identify weaknesses so that they can be fixed, and drug companies, football players, and authors willingly undergo these trials because they want to make sure they put out the best product possible. Your opponent is there to help you fix your own argument.
I'd love to hear some more ideas on this.
Now, it's easy enough to be a gentleman when engaged in a discussion with other gentlemen, but what if you're talking to a grade-A jackass?
Here are my own rules for a political discussion, mostly based on the premise that the passion of the advocate is not a factor in the merit of the argument. It's also based on the premise that the Socratic method is the best way to tear apart an argument (even if it is a woefully inadequate way of teaching law).
1. Assume that you will NEVER, EVER convince your opponent. You may actually end up doing that, and you can certainly hope for it, but do not expect it and do not argue like that's your goal. Do not go into a discussion like it's some kind of fight, because all that can do is create discord and friction.
2. Always remember that a primary goal of any discussion should be solidifying your own ideas, not changing the other guy's.
3. Respond to points you disagree with by asking questions. For instance, the other day I made a (rather strong, I thought) point in a discussion, and my counterpart asked me exactly how old I was (presumably so he could discount my argument by highlighting how he has 15 years more life experience that me). So I told him my age, and asked him "And what if I were 15 years older than you?"
4. Avoid name-calling, hyperbole, interrupting, or other forms of non-logical "heat." Keep the moral high ground, keep your composure. This is a chess match, not a street fight. When he takes your bishop, you do not put him in a headlock.
5. This is crucial: ACKNOWLEDGE THE STRENGTHS OF THE OTHER GUY'S ARGUMENT. You appear more reasonable to your opponent (and thus, a person whose opinion may matter) and you end up with a more detailed (and sound) position of your own.
6. KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. Seriously. Most people just talk out of their ass, and don't know a damned thing about what they're talking about...and gentlemen are not immune to ignorance. For a second, imagine an argument between Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann. Now imagine a conversation between people who rely solely on those two guys for their opinions. That's what most arguments are now, passionate opinions with no critical thinking to support them--"bumper sticker arguments."
7. Argue like there's an audience, a referee, or a judge. Think of the opposition as merely a means to convince someone ELSE of your opinion. You already know this, even if you're not fully conscious of this. I mean, any argument on an internet forum is likely to have an audience, and I can tell you I will almost NEVER side with the guy who resorts to cheap shots.
8. Never inform your opponent of what he thinks. He knows damn well what he thinks. Go ahead and clarify his position by asking him, 'Okay, so what your saying is A, B, and C, is this correct?" You want to point out an inconsistency? Go ahead and ask him, "Well, given your position that A, B, and C, what if D?"
9. It's actually much easier to coax out of him a statement that is in line with your position. You can't expect the other guy to say, "I agree with your point. You have bested me in this battle of wits."
10. The FDA and drug companies are not enemies. A football coach and his team are not enemies. A book editor and an author are not enemies. The challenges posed are there to identify weaknesses so that they can be fixed, and drug companies, football players, and authors willingly undergo these trials because they want to make sure they put out the best product possible. Your opponent is there to help you fix your own argument.
I'd love to hear some more ideas on this.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ron on -
Excellent post! It seems that interruptions (usually with the volume turned up to eleven) are viewed as ways to win arguments nowadays. It's very hard to remain calm when you can't finish a sentence without someone yelling at you. Usually, at that point, the argument is over and it's best to just walk away. Why waste time and energy?
-
Permalink Reply by James Dennard on -
+1
-
Permalink Reply by Jess on -
this is a very good post, thank you. Something I need to review now and again!
I have encountered websites where people go straight into 'street fighting' and I find myself sinking to their level. I wind up getting pushed way farther into the corner than I intend because it stops being about the discussion and starts being who can tear the other person up the worse.
-
Permalink Reply by Jamie on -
Excellent points, all. I have been extremely impressed by the level of maturity in the discussions here at AoM, as opposed to pretty much any other forum I've found on the web. Thanks for pointing out the logical step of taking this attitude outside of AoM. The rest of the world needs to see what we're cultivating here.
I especially liked point #7. You're almost never going to convince the person debating with you, but you have a good chance of swaying those who are listening to the discussion. That's why personal attacks are useless; they only make the attacker's position appear weaker to those observing.
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew Barbour on -
By the way, I realized after posting this that Brett put up a similar topic last year sometime, and there's a lot of overlap between the two. Brett, if you're reading, I hope I'm not coming across as trying to steal your ideas!
-
Permalink Reply by Brett McKay on -
Great post! Didn't even cross my mind that you somehow stole our ideas. Besides, I think the idea of stealing ideas is kind of silly. In fact, I love it when people take stuff we've done and add to it and make it better.
-
Permalink Reply by Yankee Cowboy Bob on -
Stealing ideas? It was said that there are no new musical progressions, everything has been done. This was said by W. A. Mozart. Yes, it's fun to see stuff re-worked. I've been humbled when I wrote something I considered a masterpiece, then someone else has already done it better, elsewhere. So, I link to it.
-
Permalink Reply by Yankee Cowboy Bob on
-
A problem I have in arguments is when someone will jump in, essentially rip you a new one and call you a doo-doo head — all because he did not bother to read the context and follow the flow of the conversation. Granted, forums like this can be difficult to follow because you have to click around to find out where the heck am I, who is replying to whom, etc. But hasty reactions can bring plenty of heat but no light to a discussion.
-
Permalink Reply by Topher White on -
I know there's a doo-doo head joke around here somewhere. Now where did I put it ....
-
Permalink Reply by Topher White on
-
Very nice.
I also try to be clear about what it is I'm arguing about. In some cases, it may be that I disagree with the position or values of the other person, in which case it's pretty apparent where the divide is.
In other cases, I may agree in principle, but disagree about an implementation of those principles. Being clear about what it is you're arguing about is key.
And I'm a big proponent of #6 - I don't often see a completely fact-free discussion, but I do see many that have 35% fewer facts than regular discussions. Do a little research!
-
Permalink Reply by SamwiseGrangee on -
I study theology, and if there is a touchy subject in this world, it's God. I get into conversations all the time with people with differing viewpoints than me, and sometimes we get into arguments. Somethings that I've learned through theological discussion have been applicable to all my conversations and arguments. Here are some core thoughts that help me . . .
I. Always know that the other person is trying to do good. They are trying to protect some part of truth. In defining theology, Christianity had to separate orthodox truth from flawed heresy. G.K. Chesterton described heresy as "The truth gone mad." When someone is wrong, it's because they have a little bit of the truth and they think its the whole truth.
Their defense of something that's good, true, or beautiful is admirable, because it's what we all want to do. We all want to defend something worth defending, but it's not okay to isolate parts of the truth to the detriment of the whole. The outcome of this struggle is to bring those parts of truth to their fulfillment.
II. Knowing that we're all trying to protect what's true, please avoid calling it an argument. Arguments are when people dig in their heels, with logs in their eyes, and break apart into tribal factions bent on dominating the other. Try thinking of it as a conversation. Conversation, recognizes that this is a collaborative activity. You are trying to bring the truth in the other to fulfillment, and guess what, you only have part of the truth as well, so you both are going to be edified and built up to a greater understanding of what is really going on. In the words of Isaiah, "Come let us reason together."
III. As it said on the Oracle of Delphi "Know Thyself." The first two steps set the background to what is going on. The third is to prepare yourself as an active participant in this conversation. Now that you know what you are getting yourself into, you need to know who you are. Know what you stand for. Ask yourself why you're standing for that. Ask if you're the only one standing for this, or if there are others who support you. Know yourself in light of the rest of what's truth. Does what I'm going to say have equal integrity to other truth claims I've made? Perhaps the best conclusion that you can come away from III is that other great Greek phrase, "The one thing that I know, is that I know nothing." You and your conversation partner are supposed to grow mutually as a result of this conversation, so don't just assume that you are set in your ways and that all he needs to do is to be convinced. If you both saw what the fullness of truth really was, you both would see something bigger than either of you had conceived.
IV. Meet them on their level. Now I really hate to single people out, but the antithesis I see to proper argument is "Way of the Master" with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. I've been trying to purge their methods from my mind for the past couple years, but from what I can recall: They offer uniform questions to use in your witnessing. These box someone into one claim (You're a liar, a stealer, a blasphemer, and an adulterer), and then they appeal to fear (Hell) to scare someone into accepting their opinion. Google it, or watch it on TV, it's disgustingly flawed argument. Sorry, that's enough venting.
But look, they did not meet people on their level.
A. Don't use uniform questions. Arguments are not cookie-cutter, so don't use the same points in every situation. The truth is flexible, you can approach it from so many angles, so approach it with them from where they are.
B. Translate your thoughts into terms you both agree on. Ray . . . Kirk . . . if you're appealing to atheists on the street, do not preface every statement with "The Bible says . . ." Doing that is as good as speaking Japanese to an Englishman. But in all arguments or conversations, the first step is defining your terms. If you're arguing about God, government, economics, window treatments, etc. You both need to understand what God, government, economics, and window treatments mean, and what use they mean to you. If you don't agree in the beginning, there is no way you will agree at the end. This also good because it forces you to be flexible with your argument, and you will understand what the integrity of what you're saying really is. Charles Bukowski said "An intellectual says a simple thing in a hard way, and an artist says a hard thing in a simple way." You will be having conversations with artists and intellectuals, and the truth doesn't change depending on how you present it. So approach it through different angles and you'll be amazed at just how beautiful complex and simple the truth really is.
V. Say, "I'm not going to convince you." Image that you're not speaking, but the truth is speaking through you. So often people are turned off into a defensive or antagonist mode, because they know that another person was trying to manipulate what they believe it. The other was trying to remove the bit of truth that they had. If you thinking you are arguing to convince someone of something completely foreign to them, stop. The truth is not something foreign to people, but its something that's a part of who they are. We as humans are built to know the truth, and to live in accordance with it. If arguing is to convince someone to join your side rather than theirs, that's an act of power over another, just to win another to your team. We like convincing people to our side, because it makes life easy. That way we have more people agreeing with us, that makes life cozy. Convincing people, or manipulating their will to think for themselves, is usually ineffective, its not letting you grow, and its not letting them grow.
VI. The truth was here before you where and it will be after you're gone. It's not up to you to make sure it continues to exist, you don't have dominate every argument you enter. You only need to get as many people on the same page where-ever they are, and from these first principles (ex. To do good, and avoid evil.) you can feel good knowing that you can agree at least on this much, and that you both will continue to grow in this truth after you go home and think about things on your own, and live your life. Argument is bad, because it means you try and reach conclusions. Conversation is good, because it means you've established a beginning.
Subscribe to the Art of Manliness Blog
AoM T-shirts
© 2009 Created by Brett McKay
