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.*
I think your advice is absolutely wonderful for private debates to maximize the health of personal relationships; but, if one is interested in public debates and actually changing behavior and society through debate, then it seems that, empirically, bad debating techniques generally beat the aforementioned good debating techniques.
I think there's an interesting meta-question about whether truth-seekers should actually incorporate "bad" debating techniques (rhetoric, name calling, emotions, and all the others you cite), which, perhaps in combination with being likely fundamentally aligned with truth dialectically, may better help improve the world.
In other words, a figure that combines Huemer with Trump/Obama would likely be much more effective.
Personally, such manipulative behavior (especially if it's consciously done) disgusts me, and I have no delusions of grandeur of actually becoming a public personality; but, from an outsider's perspective of someone that wants to see improvements in the world for all people, it seems that is actually what's needed.
5b is so important. I think a trap people fall into is assuming their disagreement is normative when it is both positive and normative.
So for example a progressive thinks, "increasing the minimum wage would be great for low skill workers", then observes that Joe favors eliminating the minimum wage.
If the progressive isn't careful, he might assume that Joe also thinks the minimum wage is great for low skill workers, and yet still opposes it! This leaves the progressive free to conclude that Joe is a bad person.
Of course, Joe doesn't think the minimum wage is good for low skill workers, and that's why he opposes it.
I saw the debate where you and David Friedman defended your similar views of libertarianism against two other people. A good lesson from that was "Don't try to make a point by assigning reading to your opponent." I believe David did a blog post about this. Another idea I have is that if you are planning on using empirical evidence, it could be good practice to let your opponent know the citation for the study ahead of time, so they have a chance at studying the validity of that. Maybe you can comment on whether you have ever seen this done.
How should one handle a debate where its whole premise is wrong in your opinion? Ie, it begs the question itself and you think the premise has the wrong perspective/focus?
I have sometimes gotten into debates with other people i know about companies being evil, and there people think im derailing the conversation by saying you need to compare a colpanies with the rest of humanity
Excellent compilation! Following your recommendations diminished the danger of ending up feeling like an ass and of losing friends along the way. Looking forward to “Part II”!
I think your advice is absolutely wonderful for private debates to maximize the health of personal relationships; but, if one is interested in public debates and actually changing behavior and society through debate, then it seems that, empirically, bad debating techniques generally beat the aforementioned good debating techniques.
I think there's an interesting meta-question about whether truth-seekers should actually incorporate "bad" debating techniques (rhetoric, name calling, emotions, and all the others you cite), which, perhaps in combination with being likely fundamentally aligned with truth dialectically, may better help improve the world.
In other words, a figure that combines Huemer with Trump/Obama would likely be much more effective.
Personally, such manipulative behavior (especially if it's consciously done) disgusts me, and I have no delusions of grandeur of actually becoming a public personality; but, from an outsider's perspective of someone that wants to see improvements in the world for all people, it seems that is actually what's needed.
5b is so important. I think a trap people fall into is assuming their disagreement is normative when it is both positive and normative.
So for example a progressive thinks, "increasing the minimum wage would be great for low skill workers", then observes that Joe favors eliminating the minimum wage.
If the progressive isn't careful, he might assume that Joe also thinks the minimum wage is great for low skill workers, and yet still opposes it! This leaves the progressive free to conclude that Joe is a bad person.
Of course, Joe doesn't think the minimum wage is good for low skill workers, and that's why he opposes it.
I saw the debate where you and David Friedman defended your similar views of libertarianism against two other people. A good lesson from that was "Don't try to make a point by assigning reading to your opponent." I believe David did a blog post about this. Another idea I have is that if you are planning on using empirical evidence, it could be good practice to let your opponent know the citation for the study ahead of time, so they have a chance at studying the validity of that. Maybe you can comment on whether you have ever seen this done.
How should one handle a debate where its whole premise is wrong in your opinion? Ie, it begs the question itself and you think the premise has the wrong perspective/focus?
I have sometimes gotten into debates with other people i know about companies being evil, and there people think im derailing the conversation by saying you need to compare a colpanies with the rest of humanity
Excellent compilation! Following your recommendations diminished the danger of ending up feeling like an ass and of losing friends along the way. Looking forward to “Part II”!
Seems like very good advice to me
If I said you looked like a rat with glasses who couldn't do a single push up, what would your debate response be?
This is all very good. Thank you.