This is the second and final article in a series on how to basically lose an argument before you start it [part 1 here]. This line of reasoning is based on the premise that people who engage in an argument are doing to so in order to discover and communicate truth.
Hence, four more ways to sabotage your argument:
Ascribe Nefarious Intentions and Motives to the Other Side
This is quite prevalent in large, seemingly irreconcilable debates: abortion, religion, left versus right, etc… People who are pro-choice are not seen as intelligent people who are making a self-ownership case for abortion (although this would be wrong), but as “baby killers” or people who “support murder” or “do not support life.”This is ridiculous. Aside from the negligible portion of the population who are homicidal, no one else wants to see babies being killed. These people are not wrongly motivated - rather, they are wrong in methods.
Political leaders are called evil all the time - some of them are. George W. Bush has been hailed as the great Satan for the last seven years or so (and Obama has not been treated any different - except by the media), but it is very realistic that Bush has pursued what he has out of good motives and intentions. He has been sincerely wrong, probably criminally so, but he is not necessarily out there to thwart humanity and bring about apocalypse.
Attack the Personal Actions of Your Opponent
This line of reasoning follows from a very valid principle - practice what you preach. But at the same time, for the purposes of arguing things that aren’t always liveable (or if they are, aren’t lived anyway) it is completely useless. Ron Paul was attacked in the 2008 election for being one of the higher proposers of appropriations (earmarks) in congress. It was alleged that because Paul put forward earmarks, that someone this discounted what he said about fiscal responsibility. But truth isn’t dependent on our acting it out (Paul also voted down every single earmark he proposed). Just because someone doesn’t stop at stop signs, doesn’t mean they would be wrong to suggest that stopping at them is a good idea.
Become Self-Righteous About Your Arguments, Facts and Case
This is an easy mistake to make. After all, if we didn’t think we were right, then why would we argue? But this is not a problem with being right, it is a problem with believing one is infallible or that a morally neutral position is somehow “right” in the sense that it is good, while the other side is bad/evil. But more than that, it is a condescending attitude toward your opponent and/or his ideas. This is presuming a certain argument before your opponent makes it. With your own ideas, it is a blind refusal to allow them to be penetrated by other’s reason, logic or facts.
Forget That You Are Speaking With A Person
This is the most important thing, and the summary of the article. We aren’t arguing with robots, with brainwashed automatons, with ideologies - we are arguing with people. People deserve to be respected and treated as people - they are intelligent, rational beings - despite how silly, ignorant or radical their worldview is.
“But truth isn’t dependent on our acting it out (Paul also voted down every single earmark he proposed). Just because someone doesn’t stop at stop signs, doesn’t mean they would be wrong to suggest that stopping at them is a good idea.”
Your analogy suggests that Paul is against earmarks (is for stopping at stop signs) even he includes them in spending bills himself (doesn’t stop at stop signs himself).
Paul includes earmarks because he believes that 100% (rather than the current 1-2%) of spending should be earmarked by Congress because it should be the Congress, not the President, that determines where money is spent.
Paul votes against the spending bills, not because of the earmarks, but rather because he opposes unbalanced spending. He would oppose unbalanced spending bills regardless of the inclusion of earmarks.
“But truth isn’t dependent on our acting it out (Paul also voted down every single earmark he proposed). Just because someone doesn’t stop at stop signs, doesn’t mean they would be wrong to suggest that stopping at them is a good idea.”
Your analogy suggests that Paul is against earmarks (is for stopping at stop signs) although he includes them in spending bills himself (doesn’t stop at stop signs himself).
Paul includes earmarks because he believes that 100% (rather than the current 1-2%) of spending should be earmarked by Congress because it should be the Congress, not the President, that determines where money is spent.
Paul votes against the spending bills, not because of the earmarks, but rather because he opposes unbalanced spending. He would oppose unbalanced spending bills regardless of the inclusion of earmarks.
Yoikes, this fact about Ron Paul is not lost on me. My point is that people accused him of not practising what he preached (however he did practice what he preached if you look at it with any depth) as though this invalidated his message.