5 wnt. How can you craft a convincing argument?
Are there any principles to talk with someone who doesn’t agree with you, who maybe has their fixed opinions, yet to keep them open to listening to a few more of your points?
Maybe this is more practical; [my last post only got one like]?
This post is about methodology, and not about content. I hope it will be of value with any content. The greatest and best challenge is to discuss with someone with opposing views. I see there’s less point to keep talking with those who already agree. Society is trying to come to some conclusions that can move it forward. To do that, there must be some agreement forged, some compliance, or the only alternative it to try to force a future path. That is actually the history of the world throughout recorded time. It has brought the world to HERE. Wow, that is disappointing.
The goal is to remain in discussion, which might mean to move slowly step by step, trying to agree to some small parts of the foundational arguments. What does that take?
1. First of all, discussion must be built on a platform of respect. Look, this guy is different than me. He has had a different background that has led to his views. I can believe that I know more than him. But in his world, I know less than him. I am claiming that my world-view must dominate. Well, let’s face it; I am a chauvinist. But still, what I say, does sound more right to me.
[Please excuse me for using the masculine in my examples of disagreement. Maybe the feminine is more agreeable?]
The level of respect also depends on your audience, and you have to agree with them in order to get through. It could be a group that holds certain people as inferior. But here I am considering the general case.
2. OK, after building a platform of respect there must be more to it, of course. We have to realize that we don’t have a license to blab. We’re not the professor and these are not our students that paid tuition to hear our lecture. In fact, the other guy is just like us. He is attempting to change our views with his carefully crafted arguments. He is not necessarily going to counter us with another viewpoint about our tenants. He may have a totally different foundation that he will switch over to. Then we will be thrown off of our trail and onto his.
The point is that we have to search for an economy of words. We cannot say everything that comes into our head. We have to prioritize and to be on purpose, and as complete as we can in a shortened version. We can use humor, metaphor and drama too. But try to make as direct as possible to your point, and not a side trip nor a waste of words.
3. We have to consider our main objective. We may think it is to convince someone, or to “win” an argument. But that is not the objective of a complex negotiation. The first objective is not to go into “blow-up”, to close the argument in a huff, and move to “gunboat diplomacy”. How do we keep the discussion going? So, maybe we need to study how arguments are closed?
[Another scenario is a time-limited debate. Then you have to move into a wrap-up and conclusions. Take your best shot.]
4. The easiest way to (think you can) close an argument is to come up with a killing counterpoint. Maybe you can dismiss it right away. It is like in a court of law, when you say this court has no jurisdiction. Dismissed! So, when laying out your side of the argument, you have to consider, and cover all these details.
5. They can state so much agreement among scientists and among the public. But what is it that the scientists are agreeing on? They’re not just agreeing that your point of view is wrong. There is some content to it, that needs to be examined. Did they take any shortcuts in their science for convenience? (Get that vaccine out quickly.)
6. You already know all the counter arguments. They’re going to spring those on you one after another. So best if you bring some of them up first, and show why each does not apply. They say, “What about this?” So, I call all of these stumbling blocks “WHAT-ABOUT’S”. You need to consider all of the basic what-about’s in your opening arguments.
7. Then there is jargon used to wipe out broad categories of reasoning. One of the best is called “Conspiracy Theory”. As if there were no conspiracies, but only theories about them. So, then you have to preempt this with your own jargon. You can start enumerating all the “COVERUP THEORIES”. The Main Stream Media is full of them, and after only a few weeks they fall flat on their face. Never a retraction of course. Repeat the words “coverup-theory” again and again, like a drum beat, with every example. Then if the other spouts out with conspiracy theory, it sounds like he is parroting you.
8. Other blocks are confusion. “Oh, this word has six definitions”; I can’t know what you’re talking about? You can look at the level of details, are they significant, or is it just feigned befuddlement to throw in an objection? You could start your talk with a list of definitions that you will use, but keeping in mind the economy of words. Or maybe you can say, “use any of those 6 definitions”, they all work within my argument. Your adversary might not have any economy of words, and will waste them on all these irrelevancies.
9. What are other tendencies that we might consider as blocking. Your adversary might have a penchant for the abstract. He might want to bring it all down to philosophical concepts or his favorite “qualities”. Qualities are assumed theoretical components that are not real. A value judgment cannot be proven wrong. You can’t touch them as real, but must only agree upon them. But agreement is what this argument is trying to accomplish, and now there is to be inserted several layers of needed agreement. Do we have to agree before we can agree? It is getting more and more unlikely. So again, our objective may be blocked.
So, you make your ✓definitions, handle all the ✓what-about’s, and counter all the ✓jargon, stay away from insignificant ✓details and undefinable ✓qualities, keep the ✓openness, and you still maintain an ✓economy of words, while you lay out ✓your logic, and all the time ✓respecting your adversary for his different acculturation. Plus, you ✓listen to and ✓engage with him; because maybe he has some good points, maybe somewhere our goals overlap, which would be the basis for a ✓compromise. (The dirty dozen.)
Well, no small deal, but really a great challenge, and the fate of the whole world may ride on you building this ability.
(Am I doing that on Argomend?) Our topics here are less earth shattering, but they still have to be built and defended. Our what-about’s can be what about Love, or what about meditation, or what about a baby that doesn’t have language, or any other of many conventional wisdom’s.
I think it is a great challenge that I am willing to pit myself against.
.
This one I will cross-post. I like it too much.