How to Win an Argument

[Assent]

(Note to Moderators: I am unsure where to put a debate about debating, so I have defaulted to here. Move at your discretion)

Dale Carnegie has written what may be among the greatest works about human interaction, How to Win Friends and Influence People. I would like to bring up one particular chapter, entitled "How to Win an Argument." His one sentence answer? Don't get in one!

Carnegie then goes on to relate a personal anecdote about the topic: He and a friend were attending a dinner party when one of the other guests related a quote and attributed it to the Bible. Carnegie knew that the guest was wrong; the quote was from Shakespeare, and so he corrected the guest. The guest insisted that he was right instead, and that the quote was most certainly from the Bible. In response, Carnegie turned to his friend, someone whom he knew was an expert in Shakespeare. The friend's response?

"The guest is right. The quote is from the Bible." Dumbfounded, Carnegie did not continue to debate. After the party ended, he asked his friend why he had said such, since they both knew full well that the quote was from Shakespeare. His friend responded that he knew that his expert opinion would not have dissuaded the mistaken guest, but rather galvanized him into arguing further, ruining an otherwise pleasant party.

The implications are, I think, obvious. Offensive behavior breeds defensive behavior, and turns a meeting of two minds into a conflict between them. No answers can be found in such a conflict; even if a combatant were to admit to him/herself afterwards that his/her opinion was mistaken, during the conflict, when pride is on the line, no step backwards can be taken.

This is not to say that a reasoned debate is impossible without resulting (or beginning) in this form. All it takes is a willingness to admit to oneself that one may be incorrect about one's opinion, an admission which is far, far easier to reach when one's "opponent" is equally willing. It is far too easy for even the most reasonable of people to take a defensive stance when facing an immobile foe. All it takes to end the cycle, however (except against the most stubborn of enemies), is to admit that one's position may be incorrect.

What I wish to do now, then, is to debate the efficacy of debate. Is my position correct? Does the adversarial method have its benefits? Do you think I am specifically speaking to you? By all means, speak up!

[micatala]

Let me guess. The phrase was

"to thine own self be true"



As far as the appropriate forum, this is not really about Christianity and Apologetics, so I think I will move it with a shadow being left here.

[McCulloch]

Your illustration very well explains why my wife tells me that I cannot discuss religion with our friends, family or colleagues. She has much greater social skills than I and I willingly submit to her wisdom.

However, this place is where one can come to debate religion. Some of the normal social rules are set aside. We say to each other, we are allowed to discuss and debate religion here, but we must abide by certain rules (civility, evidence etcetera).

Certainly, there are some who just love the fight, the thrill of victory, the adrenalin rush of adversarial contests. Normally, it is wrong for humans to stand next to each other and try to beat the crap out of each other. But, in Beijing, boxers are being allowed, encouraged even, to get into a ring and do just that. I, personally do not have the testosterone driven need for that.

For me, it is about truth. Without examining the arguments from all sides of an issue, how can you get closer to the truth of a matter? Who better to point out the flaws in your reasoning than someone who disagrees with you?

[Thought Criminal]

Basically, I'm with McCulloch. I understand that many people are quite incapable of rational debate, and that they may well become unpleasant when corrected. Nonetheless, the truth matters. If I were at a party, I would probably not bother correcting someone like that, simply because it wouldn't be fair to the host if I introduced unnecessary unpleasantness at their event. But life isn't a party; some things are too serious for us to worry about pleasantness.

TC

[cnorman18]

How do you win an argument? Beats me. I don't know that I've ever won one.

I have conceded points and backed down any number of times; the way I learned it, that's what you do when you find yourself to be in the wrong. But I don't recall that anyone has ever conceded a point to me.

That doesn't seem to be the general practice around here. I HAVE made points that I thought were pretty conclusive, and noted that my opponent declined to respond with anything at all; that has happened with a couple of members who have posted on this very thread. I don't think it's fair to claim "victory by default," though, because in any particular case, who am I to say why my opponent failed to respond? Maybe the Cowboys were playing.

So I can't say that I have ever truly won an argument. Fortunately, I don't play for points here or keep score. I'm here to learn.

I DO think that, if it is one's habit to never, ever openly concede a point but rather to just ignore it or vanish, it shows a certain weakness of character; but then I don't know what kind of self-esteem problems other members may have suffered, either, so perhaps it's unfair to judge.

It does seem to me that one essential to acknowledging that you could be wrong would be admitting it when you actually are, though. And that seems to be rather uncommon around here.

[Zzyzx]

.

This is not to say that a reasoned debate is impossible without resulting (or beginning) in this form. All it takes is a willingness to admit to oneself that one may be incorrect about one's opinion, an admission which is far, far easier to reach when one's "opponent" is equally willing.

I have encountered very few religionists who are willing to admit that their religious beliefs may be incorrect or that their "holy books" may be wrong. Would anyone take the position that Christian members here are willing to make those admissions?

If not, your criteria for reasoned debate is not met because one side is unwilling to acknowledge possibility of error. Agreed?

It is far too easy for even the most reasonable of people to take a defensive stance when facing an immobile foe. All it takes to end the cycle, however (except against the most stubborn of enemies), is to admit that one's position may be incorrect.

Many who oppose organized, commercial religion and traditional dogma ARE willing to accept the possibility that one or more of the proposed "gods" or other invisible, undetectable super beings exist PROVIDED that evidence of such existence can be shown.

What I wish to do now, then, is to debate the efficacy of debate.

The efficacy (power to create an effect) of debate can be shown to some extent by changes produced in individual debaters over time.

Is my position correct?

What, exactly, is your position?

Does the adversarial method have its benefits?

Yes. The "Scientific Method" has demonstrated effectively that challenge to ideas results in improved accuracy.

[Assent]

For me, it is about truth. Without examining the arguments from all sides of an issue, how can you get closer to the truth of a matter? Who better to point out the flaws in your reasoning than someone who disagrees with you?

What I am proposing is that one can disagree without being adversarial about it. Even if one is certain about a fact, if one were to present it as an option or possibly wrong, your opponent may be more willing to accept it. In the example above, for instance, Carnage might have done better if he had stated his position as, "I don't know, I think I remember hearing that in one of Shakespeare's plays." While certainly not guaranteed, it may have made the guest more willing to accept his/her error.

How do you win an argument? Beats me. I don't know that I've ever won one.

I have conceded points and backed down any number of times; the way I learned it, that's what you do when you find yourself to be in the wrong. But I don't recall that anyone has ever conceded a point to me.

That doesn't seem to be the general practice around here. I HAVE made points that I thought were pretty conclusive, and noted that my opponent declined to respond with anything at all; that has happened with a couple of members who have posted on this very thread. I don't think it's fair to claim "victory by default," though, because in any particular case, who am I to say why my opponent failed to respond? Maybe the Cowboys were playing.

So I can't say that I have ever truly won an argument. Fortunately, I don't play for points here or keep score. I'm here to learn.

I DO think that, if it is one's habit to never, ever openly concede a point but rather to just ignore it or vanish, it shows a certain weakness of character; but then I don't know what kind of self-esteem problems other members may have suffered, either, so perhaps it's unfair to judge.

It does seem to me that one essential to acknowledging that you could be wrong would be admitting it when you actually are, though. And that seems to be rather uncommon around here.

I admit that I have personally walked away from an argument here before. Admitting that one is wrong is hard, even when one knows one should. It is something more than that though, in most cases; I don't think my opponent is right, necessarily, quite so much as that my own position has been called into question. As such, I no longer have any business defending it, and so abandon the thread. Of course, I can't speak for everyone, or for every instance. However, you may have had more effect than you know. Don't give up hope!

I have encountered very few religionists who are willing to admit that their religious beliefs may be incorrect or that their "holy books" may be wrong. Would anyone take the position that Christian members here are willing to make those admissions?

If not, your criteria for reasoned debate is not met because one side is unwilling to acknowledge possibility of error. Agreed?

My position is that a percentage of the currently unreasonable members of the forum would become reasonable if presented with a reasonable disagreement. Of course, this would be smaller than would be encountered elsewhere, as debate forum members tend to be self-selecting against reasonableness, at least with concern to the debate topic.

Many who oppose organized, commercial religion and traditional dogma ARE willing to accept the possibility that one or more of the proposed "gods" or other invisible, undetectable super beings exist PROVIDED that evidence of such existence can be shown.

This is a reasonable position to take. Somewhat more important to the position, however, are the individual arguments. I fully understand that I am asking some people to consider that their God does not, at the very least, exist as they understand Him. I believe that some of the debaters present would be willing to take this position if presented with a reasonable opponent.

I acknowledge, however, that the only real way to make this happen is if one side or the other were to become universally reasonable; if you take a look at some of the threads, you may notice that the most adversarial posts tend to be the ones responded to first and most frequently. Thus, so long as one side is unreasonable, both sides will be unreasonable. I'm not expecting to move mountains here.

The efficacy (power to create an effect) of debate can be shown to some extent by changes produced in individual debaters over time.

Completely agreed.

What, exactly, is your position?

That a reasonable conversation can exist between two people who disagree, and that such a conversation would have far greater impact on the two involved than an adversarial conversation between the same two people.

Yes. The "Scientific Method" has demonstrated effectively that challenge to ideas results in improved accuracy.

I am distinguishing between a challenge, which can be presented reasonably, and "adversarial," which is a challenge presented unreasonably.

[Zzyzx]

.

For me, it is about truth. Without examining the arguments from all sides of an issue, how can you get closer to the truth of a matter? Who better to point out the flaws in your reasoning than someone who disagrees with you?

What I am proposing is that one can disagree without being adversarial about it.

Some sub-forums are designated as discussion forums wherein debate (or adversarial disagreement) is discouraged. However, this sub-forum is a debate venue in which adversarial disagreement is expected.

Adversarial is defined as: having or involving antagonistic parties or opposing interests.

Debate is defined as: to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments

Even if one is certain about a fact, if one were to present it as an option or possibly wrong, your opponent may be more willing to accept it.

Or your opponent may be LESS willing to accept it. Can you demonstrate that one is more likely than another in every instance, in some instances, in most instances?

In the example above, for instance, Carnage might have done better if he had stated his position as, "I don't know, I think I remember hearing that in one of Shakespeare's plays." While certainly not guaranteed, it may have made the guest more willing to accept his/her error.

I agree that it is often wise to avoid rubbing someone's nose in their mistakes; however, I do not view that as reason to discourage an adversarial manner in a debate forum (which differs from a cocktail party).

I have encountered very few religionists who are willing to admit that their religious beliefs may be incorrect or that their "holy books" may be wrong. Would anyone take the position that Christian members here are willing to make those admissions?

If not, your criteria for reasoned debate is not met because one side is unwilling to acknowledge possibility of error. Agreed?

My position is that a percentage of the currently unreasonable members of the forum would become reasonable if presented with a reasonable disagreement.

That is not what you said earlier.

This is not to say that a reasoned debate is impossible without resulting (or beginning) in this form. All it takes is a willingness to admit to oneself that one may be incorrect about one's opinion, an admission which is far, far easier to reach when one's "opponent" is equally willing.

How do you reconcile the difference?

Of course, this would be smaller than would be encountered elsewhere, as debate forum members tend to be self-selecting against reasonableness, at least with concern to the debate topic.

Debate forum members may self-select toward promoting or defending their point of view on various matters; however, I disagree that they self-select against reasonableness.

How do you define reasonableness in this application?

Many who oppose organized, commercial religion and traditional dogma ARE willing to accept the possibility that one or more of the proposed "gods" or other invisible, undetectable super beings exist PROVIDED that evidence of such existence can be shown.

This is a reasonable position to take.

Thank you.

Somewhat more important to the position, however, are the individual arguments. I fully understand that I am asking some people to consider that their God does not, at the very least, exist as they understand Him. I believe that some of the debaters present would be willing to take this position if presented with a reasonable opponent.

I encourage you to try that approach and learn if your assumptions are correct.

However, I have difficulty visualizing how to be "reasonable" in a discussion of such things as the claimed "resurrection". I do not accept unsupported claims that dead bodies come back to life. A dead body MUST have come back to life if Christianity is based in truth – its icon is reported to have been "resurrected".

What "reasonable" position might you suggest for each side in a debate regarding the "resurrection"?

I acknowledge, however, that the only real way to make this happen is if one side or the other were to become universally reasonable; if you take a look at some of the threads, you may notice that the most adversarial posts tend to be the ones responded to first and most frequently. Thus, so long as one side is unreasonable, both sides will be unreasonable. I'm not expecting to move mountains here.

What, exactly, are you expecting to accomplish?

What, exactly, is your position?

That a reasonable conversation can exist between two people who disagree, and that such a conversation would have far greater impact on the two involved than an adversarial conversation between the same two people.

Okay. I reasonably present the slight possibility that you do not distinguish clearly between debate and discussion. I offer the opportunity to observe the difference by comparing Christianity and Apologetics to General Chat.

In other words, debate by definition is adversarial. If disagreement is removed it becomes a discussion, not a debate. Some people are uncomfortable with debate. Others are not.

Yes. The "Scientific Method" has demonstrated effectively that challenge to ideas results in improved accuracy.

I am distinguishing between a challenge, which can be presented reasonably, and "adversarial," which is a challenge presented unreasonably.

It may be more comfortable for some to be non-adversarial and that approach may convince some to consider one's position. However, I have been a party to many scientific debates that were very adversarial – some of which demonstrated the effectiveness of an aggressive presentation.

The suggested non-adversarial style may be effective at some times and in some circumstances; however, it is not a cure-all to bring about agreement. Perhaps the style is most effective when views are relatively close together rather than diametrically opposed.

[Assent]

Some sub-forums are designated as discussion forums wherein debate (or adversarial disagreement) is discouraged. However, this sub-forum is a debate venue in which adversarial disagreement is expected.

Adversarial is defined as: having or involving antagonistic parties or opposing interests.

Debate is defined as: to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments

When I am using the word "adversarial," I am defining it as "aggressive and uncompromising." "Debate" I define as you do, and thus do not consider the two terms as defined to be unavoidably interlinked.

Or your opponent may be LESS willing to accept it. Can you demonstrate that one is more likely than another in every instance, in some instances, in most instances?

I can only advise you to experiment for yourself. Efforts in psychology and sociology aside, human relations are still very much an art rather than a science.

I agree that it is often wise to avoid rubbing someone's nose in their mistakes; however, I do not view that as reason to discourage an adversarial manner in a debate forum (which differs from a cocktail party).

Understood, and again, I am working with a different definition of "adversarial" than you. The problem I see in some debates is the tendency to preemptively declare victory and subsequently rub one's opponent's nose in their "mistakes."

My position is that a percentage of the currently unreasonable members of the forum would become reasonable if presented with a reasonable disagreement.

That is not what you said earlier.

How do you reconcile the difference?

Debate forum members may self-select toward promoting or defending their point of view on various matters; however, I disagree that they self-select against reasonableness.

How do you define reasonableness in this application?

For this discussion, I define "reasonableness" as "willing to admit that one's position is incorrect." "Unreasonable" then would be "unwilling to admit that one's position is incorrect." Since some participants in a debate forum tend to join in order to prove their opinion as ascendant, these members would be naturally more unwilling than a general selection of the populace to reconsider their core beliefs. My hope, then, is not to change these unchangeable opinions, but to at least discuss the secondary beliefs in a reasonable manner, or even simply increase the civility and lower the ad hominem levels otherwise inevitable in a debate seen as so important.

I encourage you to try that approach and learn if your assumptions are correct.

You have discovered my purpose for coming here.

However, I have difficulty visualizing how to be "reasonable" in a discussion of such things as the claimed "resurrection". I do not accept unsupported claims that dead bodies come back to life. A dead body MUST have come back to life if Christianity is based in truth – its icon is reported to have been "resurrected".

What "reasonable" position might you suggest for each side in a debate regarding the "resurrection"?

The Socratic method. First, accept your opponent's basic premises as being correct, hypothetically. Then, ask your opponent a series of questions about the nature of his/her beliefs. How, exactly, might a resurrection take place? Why did the events take place in such a manner, and not another? How does one rationalize the divergent sequence of events portrayed in each Gospel? (As one other topic pointed out) How many people were present when Jesus emerged from his cave? How does translation alter the apparent events? Most of these questions have been answered over the centuries by the established church doctrine, but many (if not most) practitioners do not think about such questions, at least not to such depth. I see this as a way of challenging beliefs without being adversarial (as I have defined the term); it may drive one's opponent either towards or away from his/her faith, but at least s/he is learning something.

What, exactly, are you expecting to accomplish?

answered above

Okay. I reasonably present the slight possibility that you do not distinguish clearly between debate and discussion. I offer the opportunity to observe the difference by comparing Christianity and Apologetics to General Chat.

In other words, debate by definition is adversarial. If disagreement is removed it becomes a discussion, not a debate. Some people are uncomfortable with debate. Others are not.

Again, differing definitions. I do agree that being aggressive has its merits; wars would not occur if they were not in some way productive. Wars do not assimilate cultures, however; it is the peaceful process of integration that comes afterwards that does so. To convince someone that his/her opinion is wrong on your terms is easy, and generally unproductive. To convince someone that his/her opinion is wrong based on its internal logic, however, is more difficult, more productive, and less adversarial.

It may be more comfortable for some to be non-adversarial and that approach may convince some to consider one's position. However, I have been a party to many scientific debates that were very adversarial – some of which demonstrated the effectiveness of an aggressive presentation.

The suggested non-adversarial style may be effective at some times and in some circumstances; however, it is not a cure-all to bring about agreement. Perhaps the style is most effective when views are relatively close together rather than diametrically opposed.

I will admit, I am a "type B" personality and do not relish confrontation. I also agree that a non-aggressive style is not a panacea. I am not certain, however, that greater aggression between distant opinions produces greater results.

[JoeyKnothead]

Call the other side a fool, and then censor their reply.