Tips for Debate, part 1

Many people don’t argue very well. By “arguing well” here, I don’t mean arguing cleverly or in such a way as to stump your “opponent”. To argue well is to argue in such a way that progress could reasonably be expected if we all argue in that way. I’ve written these tips for arguing well about controversial questions.*

1. Guiding principle: Your goal is to make progress toward understanding, if not agreement.

It is not to “score points”, express emotions, prove your moral or intellectual superiority, humiliate the other party, or otherwise cause harm. (If this isn’t true, then you shouldn’t be engaged in discussion at all; you’re part of society’s problem.) Everything else follows from this.

2. Do not beg the question.

Do not assume what needs to be argued for. This includes:

a. Do not give ideologically slanted examples.

Ex.: Suppose that, to make a point, you need to give an example of a crime. Don’t use “a welfare queen defrauding the state” or “a right-wing bastard committing a hate crime against an oppressed minority.” By doing that, you’re derailing the conversation and pushing the other party farther away from you. Use a normal crime, like bank robbery, or a mafia boss ordering a hit.

b. Do not just assert things that your opponent couldn’t reasonably be expected to accept.

c. Don’t presuppose the rest of your ideology.

Illustrating (b)-(c): if you’re arguing with a conservative, do not presuppose that America is an oppressive patriarchy, that capitalism is unjust, or that religion is the opiate of the masses. You won’t be persuasive; you’ll just further alienate the other party. If you can’t make your point without assuming that sort of thing, then you don’t have a good argument.

3. Don’t be emotional.

If you are angry, offended, or otherwise emotional, then you are unlikely to argue well. If you feel yourself starting to get angry, pause and take a breath (quietly – not a loud, exasperated breath). Do not respond until you feel calm. If you can’t suppress your anger about a topic, then you shouldn’t discuss it.

4. Don’t make it personal.

A major way in which discussions fail is that they degenerate into personal attacks. To avoid this:

a. Do not discuss your interlocutor’s personal traits.

Do not make remarks about the other party’s character. Do not speculate about their motives or discuss their level of knowledge or intelligence. Don’t do it directly, and don’t do it by implication. Do not, for example, say “I thought that a compassionate person would say . . .” or “Everyone knows that . . .” (followed by something the other person disagrees with) or “You seem to be ill-informed”. Do not needlessly make claims that in any way imply that your interlocutor has acted immorally, stupidly, etc.

b. This includes statements about people your interlocutor identifies with or admires.

If you’re talking to a Catholic, do not make disparaging remarks about Catholics, or the Pope, or Jesus. If you’re talking to a liberal elite, do not make disparaging remarks about liberal elites, or professors, or journalists. Do not needlessly attack the character or motives of politicians that your interlocutor probably voted for (or would have voted for), either.

c. Exception: if the negative remarks are the actual issue.

None of the above is to suggest that you may not say what is necessary to defend your view on the actual issue. Example: if you’re debating whether gay marriage should be allowed, and your view is that it shouldn’t be allowed because homosexuality is wrong, then you can say that – even if, for example, your interlocutor is gay. Or, if you’re debating whom one should vote for in the election, and your view is that Trump should not be elected because of his bad moral character, you can say that, even if your interlocutor loves Trump. But do not go beyond what is necessary to make your point on the issue. (E.g., don’t discuss how Trump’s supporters are idiots.)

d. There is no place for sarcasm.

If your interlocutor advocates open borders, your objection cannot be, “Yeah, because everyone knows that the rest of the world is totally friendly and no one would ever want to hurt us.”

Let R = [the rest of the world is totally friendly and no one would ever want to hurt us]. By saying that sarcastically, you are implying: (1) R is so stupid that when you assert it, your audience can infer that you’re actually denying it, but also (2) your interlocutor nevertheless believes R, and (3) it’s so obvious that R follows from what he said that you don’t have to explain how it follows or even state that it does. You’re not showing any of this; you’re just presupposing it.

The appropriate statement of the objection would be this: “I don’t believe we should have open borders, because there are too many people in the rest of the world who would wish to harm us.” This leaves room for dialogue.

e. Do not be amazed by their view.

Don’t tell your interlocutor that you are surprised that anyone holds his view. This carries the subtext, “You are more benighted than my previous estimate of the most benighted person in the world.”

f. Don’t needlessly take things personally.

If your interlocutor has not done anything insulting other than defending his view on the issue under discussion, do not take offense, and do not state that you are offended. Doing so converts a discussion of the issue into a personal contest.

Example: if the issue is “Why are there fewer female than male mathematicians?”, and your opponent’s view is that the reason is that there are fewer women than men who are good enough at math to be mathematicians, then he can state that view. Do not say, “I’m offended as a woman.” Doing so will more likely strengthen rather than weaken his belief that he’s right.

g. Don’t allow insults.

If someone appears to be insulting you, do not respond in kind. If it’s not explicit, you can ask them (matter-of-factly, not angrily) if they meant the insulting thing that they apparently implied. If they make the insult explicit, or they can’t stop implicitly insulting you, stop talking to them. By doing so, you’re improving public discourse.

5. Don’t be dogmatic.

a. Most controversies have more than one side.

If you’re debating a controversial issue, then there are probably reasons and evidence on both sides. If it doesn’t seem to you now that most controversial issues are more than one-sided, then the best explanation is that you are biased, and you should stop being so.

b. Don’t assume that others agree with you.

About moral, political, and philosophical questions, people share our opinions a lot less than we would naturally think. So you can’t assume, when you give an example, that other people will have the same intuitions about it. If you presuppose certain premises that seem obvious to you, other people will very often not follow your argument. And even when people appear to agree with you, they often disagree at a deeper level.

E.g., if someone agrees with you that the current President is no good, it very often turns out that the reason they think this is that they want the President to do more of the things that you object to, or different things that you would object to, etc. Similarly, if someone “agrees with you” in rejecting some policy, you can’t assume that you are overall in agreement on that issue (and you usually are not).

c. Don’t always bite the bullet.

If someone points out counterintuitive consequences of your views, you should sometimes be prepared to change them. You should not always just embrace whatever follows from your initial positions.

d. Recognize empirical questions.

Recognize when a question you are discussing is empirical (depends on evidence from observation). E.g., the effects of gun laws on crime, the effectiveness of drug laws, the effectiveness of government stimulus, etc. Admit when you don’t actually have the empirical evidence. And don’t simply assume empirical facts. E.g., don’t assume that there are more homicides than suicides just because that seems to you to make sense.

e. Permit falsification.

Unless your view is an a priori necessary truth, there should be something that would convince you that it was false; if you can’t think of anything, then you are probably being dogmatic. When someone presents evidence against your view, and you explain the evidence away, ask yourself how you would have reacted if the evidence had been the opposite of what it is. If you would have claimed E as evidence for your view, then you must recognize the opposite of E as evidence against your view.

f. Seek falsification.

After identifying what evidence would convince you that your view was false, try to actually find that evidence in the world.

I have many more suggestions, but that's enough for now.

---

[* First posted on Nov. 22, 2018; reposted with minor edits.]