Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Arguing (with Humility & Charity)
Ralph Hedley An argument from opposite premises (Wikimedia Commons)
“All I wanted to do was argue.” So said a student in the first session of my public university course, “Argumentative Writing.” He was however surprised – in his words, “caught off guard” – by the first two sessions I taught on “Humility” and “Charity.” For instance, about humility, I said our arguments should be gracious, considerate, careful to represent other ideas with accuracy. And I said about charity that communication is a community-based, convivial, invitational work of intellectual hospitality. Turns out, students had only thought about a course on argumentation as a knock-down-drag-out verbal brawl. My teaching was based on listening, care for others, and broadmindedness – concepts these students were not accustomed to. You can view the two videos where I introduce these concepts via links at the end of this Truth in Two.
Those who know me well will think it is no wonder that I would take a non-combative approach to persuasion. Though I enjoy conversation and discussion, I don’t like conflict and I don’t like to argue in anger. But unbeknownst to students, my approach in the class was not based on my own personality but upon biblical truths – Proverbs set the tone of dialogue. Proverbs 15.33 says, “The fear of the Lord is instruction in wisdom and humility comes before honor.” And as for charity, Proverbs 15.23 is clear, “To make an apt answer is a joy to a man and a word in season, how good it is!” Christians should carefully consider graciousness in our conversations rather than an argumentative spirit. Don’t forget that at His first public reading of Scripture it was said of Jesus’ hearers, “They marveled at the gracious words coming from his mouth.” Disputation and disagreement are important in life. But our argumentation should be woven with humility and charity. For the Comenius Institute, this is Dr. Mark Eckel, Executive Director of the Center for Biblical Integration at Liberty University, personally seeking truth wherever it’s found. [First published at MarkEckel.com]
LINKS
Humility Video Link
Charity Video Link
Published in General
Mark, you’re just wrong. You should never argue with Humility and Charity. When those two gang up on you, you’re definitely in trouble. Argue with Hope, instead. She’s bad news. 😉
Unfortunately, that’s all many of them know. We live in a world in which the premise of laying out a disagreement about something has been conflated with the notion of “Let’s start a fight to the death!” It’s actually impossible to argue sanely or even just productively with someone who’s determined to start a fight to the death. Such a person is hard-wired to dismiss anything you say with extreme prejudice, and to escalate going forward, neither of which approaches is helpful to a peaceful or meaningful resolution.
Bless you. That’s the college world I grew up in, one that’s become all too rare these days. But I think it was more humane–and inclusive–than the one that exists today.
This is beautiful. Thanks.
Books should be written and careers founded on expounding the theme. But reading this short note, with just two verses from the Old and one from the New Testament, is like seeing a river near its source.
Well said, She!
11@ Clauses, Persuasive [1]
1@ Clauses, Performative [2]
* * *
[1] I agree with all. My favorite:
[2] The blessing. I add my voice to it.
This should be posted with the Ricochet COC as aspirational for all here. A diplomatic approach to argumentation is more persuasive than the typical leftist tactic I call argument by insult.
Like many things, when having an argument one should know what one’s objective is.
Do you want to win the argument and batter your opponent into subjection?
Do you want to reason and hopefully convince the other party?
Do you want to impress others, and display your knowledge?
I think many of us interact with others while motivated by conflicting goals, which may be mutually exclusive.
Amen to each point and amen to the collective point.
Now, that’s not a bad idea, @samuelblock.
That is a fool’s goal in a one-on-one argument, unless there is a partisan audience. Getting battered is never persuasive to the one getting battered. It just makes that opponent more defensive.
This is a mature person’s goal when the one to be persuaded is one’s opponent. It can be reached if at all with kindness, humility and charity. One must make the opponent a friend, not a competing enemy.
This is like the first goal, only there is definitely an audience to impress. The persuasion is aimed at the audience, not the opponent.
One other possible goal, it seems to me, is to find some common ground even without full persuasion to one’s point of view. Common ground is a step toward compromise.
I was once a judge at mock debates in an advocacy program at a conservative nonprofit. Sharp young women tore up their opponents (assigned to advocate for the left). I said that being smarter and more factual than lefties is not really a very high bar. One must go beyond and be Reagan-like insofar as your argument is always an invitation (even extended to the opponent) to take a better tack on an issue rather than a judgment or an attack.
The fundamental problem is that if facts, logic, history, and an understanding of American law and founding principles actually matter to a person, that person would not be a lefty. So the style, feel, and tone of the presentation is vitally important. You must be too polite, personable and funny to be the mean Nazi they want/expect you to be. So being a smartypants debater who “owns the libs” may not be the optimal persona in many settings.
Lefty motivations are often a combination of malignancy and narcissism posing as enlightened compassion so the alleged motives must be praised as if sincere and a basis for the invitation for a better way forward.
I agree. But I don’t find I have the composure to debate people who are clearly disingenuous.
Very good point.
More precisely…
(a) your argument must never be a judgement of, nor an attack on, the person you are trying to persuade
AND
(b) it must always be a judgement of, and an attack on, that person’s argument.