How Do you Argue?
It's exceedingly rare to encounter a liberal who actually knows what he is talking about or the philosophical foundations of his positions, but it does happen from time to time. On those unique occasions, it helps to be able to take on such a person and his ideas in a constructive way. Not only does it provide a chance to flex one's rhetorical muscles, but it also affords an opportunity to change someone's mind. Think about it: if a liberal is intellectually honest and rigorous enough to understand his positions, he may have the cognitive fortitude to be persuaded by well-reasoned arguments, facts, and civil discourse. In such times, we do conservatism, libertarianism, and sanity a disservice if all we are capable of is shouting past one another.
In a recent post I took a controversial position and attempted to defend it with logic and reason. Some people gladly played my reindeer games, but others seemed to have taken offense at the exercise. This saddened me a little. I've come to expect a higher level of discourse here, even when the ideas under consideration are controversial or emotional. Unmet expectations being the source of all displeasure, I must either adjust my expectations of Ricochet, or I must do whatever I can to help those expectations be met. This post is a shot at the latter proposal since the former is disheartening.
Here are some things I rely on as much as possible when differing with another person on any idea:
- Ask questions. It's far too easy to mis-characterize the position another holds for lack of understanding or explanation. Bonus: when a lefty destroys his own argument it provides abundant entertainment.
- Find a consensus starting point. Abortion (the most contentious debate of all) provides a perfect example of where this comes in handy. The debate is not really about whether or not to abort a fetus; rather, the debate is whether or not a fetus is a human being. Very few lefties think killing human beings is a right. The real debate is the humanity of the unborn. This is a much less emotional topic that lends itself better to philosophical, logical, and even scientific arguments. This debate can be had cognitively rather than emotionally.
- It's ok to concede a well-reasoned point. Even those on the left can be right from time to time. It normally happens with points of fact rather than conclusions, so concede the fact, then argue for the right understanding of the fact's impact on reality. Accepting a well-stated fact from an opponent also provides a consensus point from which to baby-step the opponent down the right path.
- When all else fails, kindness and civility are more persuasive than angry rhetoric and shouted talking points. If you can't harvest, then tend the crop. If there is nothing to tend, then plant seeds. Leave your opponent with something to ruminate about; something that tests or challenges his convictions. If he is honest, a point made in kindness will germinate, sprout, and one day bear fruit.
I am not, of course, a master at these techniques. Some people are simply infuriating in spite of our best efforts to engage them civilly. However, being able to effectively make the case for conservatism (classical liberalism) is of paramount importance if we are to save not only this nation but humanity from the ever encroaching forces of tyranny. Christians like to remind each other to watch how they live because one's life may be the only proclamation of the gospel some ever hear. Conservatism casts a similar charge to its adherents. Simply knowing the truth is rarely ever enough. It must be transmitted, but it must be done in such a way as to not destroy the recipient. How we argue is (arguably, heh) just as important as what we argue for.
What say you, Ricochet? How do you engage the opposition and win the battle without salting the earth?
- Comment (56)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments:
May '11
Re: How Do you Argue?
yeah, that also kind of gets at the question of "why post?" (as I answer a question you did not ask). Often, I find myself just writing an essay to get out thoughts; and comments are incredibly useful for feedback - it is great to hear what people think about the things I've said. Other times (rarely, for me) I will write a post hoping to spark a conversation or get people talking about a particular subject. I guess that a person could analyze the different types of posts you find here on Ricochet 1) essays, 2) links, 3) polls, 4) controversy bait ... any more?
To answer your actual question. I'm not sure that it's possible. We have great debates here on Ricochet, but we're typically all coming from similar worldviews. When you talk to a liberal or someone totally opposed to you, you cannot often win. That is because the argument is being had cross-purposes. In order to have a meaningful discussion, you have to start from a common ground, which means you need to redefine your question about a dozen times before getting to a place where you can begin talking.
May '11
Re: How Do you Argue?
p.s. if a person is intellectually honest and rigorous enough to understand his positions, he is most likely a conservative. Otherwise, he is an unabashed socialist. Frankly, I'd rather argue w/ an unabashed socialist than a liberal.
Jan '11
Re: How Do you Argue?
There is no single way to know what will change anyone's mind. Some people are persuaded by emotion, others are intimidated by statistics, others still are swayed by appeals to tradition or authority. The traditional formal fallacies of logic are more than just errors in judgment; they're also markers in how people are persuaded.
In light of that, I feel compelled to pass on a saying that I read in an obituary for Steve Sabol, the NFL Films master who just died last week:
People live under myths and stories. The details aren't always as important as the general plot and the heroes. If you "engage the opposition," you have to recognize whether you're threatening their myths and heroes, in which case, logical premises won't have much importance.
Dec '10
Re: How Do you Argue?
I had one in school. He described himself as a "bearded Marxist." Best debates ever! We argued every point back to Plato and Aristotle and the professor said he'd just let us teach the class since we already made every point he wanted to bring up. Neither of us changed the other, but I think both came away with a deeper understanding of the other's arguments and our own positions. He really tested me on conceding a point of fact and arguing only about the conclusion drawn from the fact.
Jul '11
Re: How Do you Argue?
I tailor my arguments based on an assessment of the opponents brain power and desire to be reasonable. I can figure those qualities out very quickly and have a wonderful well reasoned debate, a pleasant conversation, or an insult fest.
The desire to be reasonable can be read in a persons face and body language.
Nov '10
Re: How Do you Argue?
I find asking questions is the best method; if you are good enough, you hardly ever need to make an actual statement, as the other person will convince themselves - and as most folk's politics are held almost as closely as religion (and for some, replace it), that's about the only way they can be convinced.
Doesn't just work on politics, either.
Edited on September 24, 2012 at 8:42pmDec '10
Re: How Do you Argue?
DocJay: I tailor my arguments based on an assessment of the opponents brain power and desire to be reasonable. I can figure those qualities out very quickly and have a wonderful well reasoned debate, a pleasant conversation, or an insult fest.
The desire to be reasonable can be read in a persons face and body language. · 1 minute ago
Indeed. These pointers work only when engaged in meaningful, cognitive debate. Other times, the wittiest, most cutting insult is the only win one can walk off the field with. I'm a big fan of those as well, but they serve an entirely different purpose. What's amazing is reading someone like Steyn who is able to do both in the same exchange. I think Jonah Goldberg is also a good example of this.
Dec '10
Re: How Do you Argue?
Those are indeed tricky. I think conceding the story and arguing the moral is the only way forward in such situations.
Mar '11
Re: How Do you Argue?
A starting point for finding Progressives who generally know what they're talking about.
Not that that helps with conversation, but its generally a good practice, prior to engaging someone on the other side in argument, if you learn what the broad outlines of the arguments on the other side are.
And, a little humility goes a long way. Remember: there are folks with conservative convictions who don't argue terribly well either.
Aug '11
Re: How Do you Argue?
I burn their villages, feast on their livestock, and salt the earth as I depart.
Aug '11
Re: How Do you Argue?
Years ago, as a wee-brained college lad, I shared a house with two other guys. One was heading for a semester abroad and sublet his room to an avowed Marxist. Before the Marxist moved in, the other guy and I would spend hours practicing our debate techniques, with each of us taking on the role of the Marxist in turns.
Though I'm not sure it helped us get through to the Marxist (who really was kind of a gentle, though brainwashed, soul) but it certainly helped us understand our own views better -- what we believed and why we believed it. I would recommend trying it out with a friend sometime.
Mar '11
Re: How Do you Argue?
I'm in complete agreement with this statement. What you'll find most often is that the person you are arguing with hasn't really thought through his position. Abortion is such a great example... taking a position other than "life begins at the beginning" means you need a really good answer for When? Why? and How? If your opponent lacks a good answer you're halfway home.
On the flip side, I think conservatives too often and too quickly offer up their own position in great detail in order to convince. All this accomplishes is providing the opponent with a target for relentless attack and you'll spend hours arguing about the meaning of the word "all" in your opening statement.
May '12
Re: How Do you Argue?
I like your first bullet point (they're all good). The problem, as you state, is getting a leftie to discuss issues in calm, reasoned manor. Most make some sounds about Bush and run off.
My other tactic is to say "Let's try this on the other foot: What if this happened to a Republican [for example] President? What would the presses reaction be? What would your reaction be?" This gets them all wound up.
Apr '12
Re: How Do you Argue?
The Liberals (Progressives) I know are all guided by emotion. It is a waste of breath to try to get them to discuss economic theory, for instance. In fact, just last week a friend of mind actually said that conservatives need to learn the Socialist economic theory, just after I had mentioned my admiration for Dr. Thomas Sowell, and having watched the podcast with Peter Robinson. The conclusion I am coming to is that there definitely are parallel universes. They are in this world, not even in a different space.
I have to admit, I do love touching Progressives lightly on a hot spot and watching them go into orbit. Very entertaining! They really are so emotional. :-)
Mar '11
Re: How Do you Argue?
Disagree - slightly.
I listen to a fair amount of the thoughtful liberal v thoughtful conservative talk shows on NPR (they do exist, sporadically). Many of the most eloquent and well-reasoned liberals accept most conservative premises, but they relativize each specific issue.
These people agree, for instance, that a) free markets generally provide the most wealth for the most people, b) no one should pay more than 40% federal income taxes, c) welfare programs can lead to dependency among many recipients, and so on.
Of course, they want regulations, progressive taxes, some safety net, etc. But very few conservatives want to completely eliminate these things, so the debate revolves around degrees. It is difficult (but stimulating) to argue the finer points.
Edited on September 24, 2012 at 10:35pmApr '12
Re: How Do you Argue?
There's a clip of Alan Keyes drawing some teenagers, fully aware, into an understanding of their own foolishness. It was brilliant.
I have discussed the issues at length with many hundreds of 'well educated' Leftists of all stripes and I have yet to find one that actually understands, or admits to, the foundations of his beliefs.
When I ask a question like "What is the trade-off for this kind of policy?" I usually get blank stares, with the occasional claim that there is no trade-off.
When I ask a question like: "What is the hierarchy of your priorities?" The response will have nothing to do with the question.
I applaud your efforts but believe that you can't argue with a sick mind. If a rational Leftist were to look around at his peers and the endless stream of nonsense, he'd become a conservative.
Mar '11
Re: How Do you Argue?
Highlama:
When I ask a question like "What is the trade-off for this kind of policy?" I usually get blank stares, with the occasional claim that there is no trade-off.
I think this is a key point. The left is made up of an odd conglomeration of single-issue people. An environmentalist really only cares about the environment. Gay marriage proponents only care about gay marriage. A pro-choice advocate only cares about choice. They accept the positions of their allies but don't really care all that much about those other issues. In fact, they will jettison their position on that other issue fairly quickly when faced with a conflict.
So, for instance, when arguing with an environmentalist you are really at a disadvantage because, for them, nothing shy of environmental purity will do.
Mar '11
Re: How Do you Argue?
Highlama: I have discussed the issues at length with many hundreds of 'well educated' Leftists of all stripes and I have yet to find one that actually understands, or admits to, the foundations of his beliefs.
When I ask a question like "What is the trade-off for this kind of policy?" I usually get blank stares, with the occasional claim that there is no trade-off.
Statements like this one are part of the reason that I linked to Brookings earlier.
I don't much like it when Barack Obama takes upon himself the role of setting up and swatting down Republican straw men left and right.
But we're coming within arms length of doing the same here.
I cannot speak to your anecdotal experience, of course, but just as I do not suppose that if I walked into a coffee shop and asked a fellow Christian to defend his beliefs, I'd get Aquinas in full; or a fellow conservatives to defend free markets, that I would get a Thomas Sowell quality argument; just so, I do not suppose the average coffee shop liberal is ready to expound on Kojeve, Rawls, Taylor or Nussbaum (or others).
Jul '11
Re: How Do you Argue?
My favorite device is reductio ad absurdum. It's fun to carry a person's thoughts to logical conclusion and far, far beyond. That's when you start seeing if the argument is well thought out or not. And you end up learning a lot.
Edited on September 25, 2012 at 1:55amAug '10
Re: How Do you Argue?
Barkha and Docjay are spot on . But it is back to the feeling vs thinking for many of the present conflagrations.
A closed mind is often identified by it's hagiography .
Let's take a look at the sainted leaders of the Democrat Party , no..let's have Mary Jo Kopechne give her view.
( I feel badly for her.)
Edited on September 25, 2012 at 1:51am