Tag Archive for 'blogs'

How To Sabotage An Argument, Part 2

Written by Colin. Published on July 20, 2009 ago in General. 3 Comments

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.

How To Sabotage An Argument, Part 1

Written by Colin. Published on July 6, 2009 ago in Essays, Philosophy, Politics and Religion. 2 Comments

Before I take a look at the meat of this article, I want to use a situation common to most of us to try and lay out my argument.

When I get upset with other drivers on the road, regardless of how “legitimate” my case is, and I actually become angry (as opposed to simply annoyed) it is often because:

  • I am not merely upset at the other driver, but am engaged in part of a universal quest to educate/set straight the mass of bad/discourteous drivers ruining the roads for others.
  • I question the ability of the driver in question (this is especially true of the very old and the very young – and sometimes the female gender) and wonder how they have managed to get licensed, let alone insured.
  • I am ticked off directly by what they have done.
  • I lack empathy for people who have circumstances which require them to drive slowly (transporting breakables, they have medical issues, they are enjoying the scenery).
  • I forget that there is actually a driver in the other car.

In many ways, this is a microchasm for human interaction when it comes to debate in general – especially intellectual discourse. Our base instinct, in discourse, if often to act like this with people with whom we are arguing. As the debate wears on, the chances of seeing the implosion of the discussion increase as instinctual techniques begin to take over and our very own words and ideas start to lose the argument before we begin.

I want to lay out a few common ways to sabotage your argument (this often happens early in the argument) by way of tactics I have seen on this site, other sites and mistakes that I myself have made over the years. Feel free to add your own thoughts on items I have missed or not explained well enough.

Not Understand What “Winning” and “Losing” Mean in Debate
In some ways, this is starting with the basics. What is the point of debate? If it is to convince others that I am right and they are wrong, then I’ve already “lost.”

The point of debate is not intellectual conquest, or the winning of hearts and minds to your cause. Debate should be a cooperative exercise that discovers, communicates or clarifies truth between individuals. When I am arguing about capitalism, or if I am witnessing to someone who is sceptical, it should not be my hope to decimate their current thinking and replace their conclusions with my own. Rather, I hope that I am contemplatively leading them to understanding that they were yet unaware of, while, at the same time being aware that I don’t know everything myself, and can learn from their counter-points.

Winning a debate doesn’t mean that each side comes away agreeing with the other side. But in a “won” debate, each person has new information to add to their own frame of reference, and hopefully has made a meaningful contribution to the collected  knowledge of another.

Make Your Argument an “Us Versus Them” Battle
At times, I do feel like I am on a crusade when it comes to debating about certain ideas about which I am passionate. Take Ron Paul supporters in 2008. I felt a lot of solidarity with these people and I found myself more agitated over certain issues than I normally am. I was so zealous about what I viewed as my “us” (big-tent libertarianism – from the libertarian GOP to newly converted democrats supporting Ron Paul) that it became easy to believe that those who were arguing against me were part of a “them” (Neo-Cons, Compassionate Conservatives, Theocrats, etc…). But the moment that collective motives and group activism are attached to our debating – are we really sharing the intellectual road to discovery with someone, or are we stereotyping, classifying, dismissing and attempting to “war” with them as if defeating an “enemy” rather than working with an ally, albeit one very different than ourselves.

A tale-tell sign of this is ad hominems and other demonisation tactics. The second I begin painting my opponent with broad brush strokes is the moment where I’ve stopped seeking truth, and started zealously proselytising and regurgitating some kind fo party line.

Ascribe an Entire Ideology to Your Opponent  Because of One Point, Line of Reasoning or Word
This could be viewed as a sub-point of the”us versus them” problem because it uses the same categorisation, stereotyping and dismissal – but it is different. Allow me to explain.

We all have certain words, phrases and concepts that conjure up past experiences (perhaps even traumatic ones) or simply evoke knee-jerk reactions based on philosophical or intellectual dislikes. Some of these for me are:

  • friendship evangelism
  • tithing
  • gossip
  • freedom isn’t free
  • free X (where X is healthcare, school or some other social good)
  • global warming
  • credit crunch

There are lots of different reasons that these words are more likely to reveal argumentativeness in me. But the point is that when someone uses these phrases (and others) I get a quasi-instinctual urge to correct them in ways that vary – from merely making a face, to opening a canned lecture and going on for half an hour.

But worse than that – it is part of that process of making uninformed conclusions and ascribing entire ideologies to your opponent because they’ve used language that triggers something in you. In other words, they may have meant something completely different (and the unique perspective of each individual almost guarantees that this is the case) but in one fell swoop, all of your own prejudices have been heaped onto their argument.

Aside from my own blunders in this area, I see this a lot with traditional hot-button issues for people such as abortion, feminism, supporting the troops and drugs. I think there are a lot of people in the academy, for example, who can accept my classical-liberal economic views. But if I spoke very loudly about my views on abortion or feminism, I might be practically blacklisted. By the same token, there are a lot of left-leaning bible-believing Christians who have trouble finding places in conservative churches because they might be anti-war or for universal healthcare.

Belittle/Disparage the Credentials/Lack Thereof of Your Opponent
I hope to do a whole piece on this soon, but one place where I see this being commonly practised is in the pulpit and some churches. Because of the heresy coming out of the academy (this has been a problem for thousands of years, by the way – it is hardly a “post-modern” phenomenon), it has become fashionable to broadly criticise education, theologians and academics.

A PhD doesn’t automatically make someone arrogant, proud, idolatrous, humanistic or a heretic (among other words I’ve seen). It simply means that someone has spent a lot of time specialising in a certain area of a specific field. If an academic (perhaps even one who went to a bible college) who researched Israel in 750-735BC wants to then go and talk about why Jesus didn’t exist and all religions lead to God – it says nothing, absolutely nothing about formal education, other academics or academics and Christianity. By the same token, I have seen some well-educated clergy and church leaders dismiss men who, with little formal bible education, were able to do great works from God, start large churches and write edifying books.

But the broader point is this – the other side in an argument has education and experience that is different that yours – and this is going to lead them to different conclusions. Rather than judgementally classifying and then dismissing their experience and education, try to come to grips with thier findings and consider that they might have an angle on things that you have missed. Where their experience and education are misinforming them – correct it.

In the second half of this series [go to part 2], I hope to look at more ways to sabotage an argument, including issues of motives, practising versus preaching, self-righteousness and the fact that were are debating with people (which may seen self-evident, but you’ll see what I mean).