Focus on the argument; don’t engage in Ad hominem attacks – In every debate or argument, there will be fundamental points of contention that need to be put forth and worked through by the parties. Whoever of them can best set out their position and rationally resolve the tension of competing positions will prove more persuasive and win the contest. This is the very definition of success as the context defines it. What is not acceptable or looked upon favourably are Ad hominem, or personally directed, attacks by one party against another. In the eyes of an audience, it is a losing and unbecoming strategy to take that low road. Those who genuinely have points of substance to make, don’t need to resort to personal attacks to make their points because they know that attempts to undermine the messenger rather than focusing on the message can’t help but detract from the substance of their argument. No doubt, things can get heated in the throes of battle, and when egos get involved in the process, personal feelings can become inflamed by the sense that one is losing ground or face to the other side. This is where self-awareness and restraint needs to be exercised before one gives expression to their emotionality. Even when one is being baited to reflexively react to a point being made, they need not take that bait, and being present to their state of being as they engage in the discussion will go a long way to keeping calm and remaining in control of their case to be made, and winning the respect of those who might need to adjudicate a decision between the parties. All of this also explains why we yearn for statespersons in our government and not for politicians. Most politicians are incredibly petty and aren’t adverse to taking pot shots at members of the opposition who question what they want to do or how they want to do it. This is because their ego is invested in the proposed plan that they want to have implemented, often for their own career objectives and advancement. Statespersons, on the other hand, don’t allow that ego interference, and they can push forward and get behind policies that are in the broader interest of the constituents they serve. Because they also have a thicker skin in the face of challenges to their perspectives or plans, they are less inclined to become triggered or experience the defensiveness that could prompt an underhanded attack against those critics.
Establish common ground at the outset and proceed from there – There is no surer way for a debate to go immediately off the rails than for each of its participants to commence by going hard in on their opposing viewpoints. I think why this deleterious strategy is often advocated for is because it is thought to be an effective starting point to put forward the strongest points that one has against the other side at the outset. A better strategy, and one that will paint the participant advocating for it in a better light, is to establish common ground at the beginning of the discussion. For most topics that are up for debate, there will be a middle ground that most reasonable persons of good will can land in determining the issues in question. For example, in the recent Voice referendum debate, I think the vast majority of Australians would agree with the proposition of wanting the condition of the most vulnerable Indigenous Australians to be improved, and their recognition as a people being integral to the narrative history of this country. Obviously, there were very different positions taken about how that should be formally enshrined or affected, and the details surrounding this ended up hijacking the debate and being decisive in how it was settled. If there was a missed opportunity to come from the debate, it was not proceeding from the base of common ground, and instead allowing opposing (and often extreme) ideas which deviated from that mean to become entrenched in the public discourse. The problem with opposing ideas that lie at the extremes of a spectrum is that they appeal to the ego so strongly that when we choose a side that we can invest this aspect of our identity in, we don’t want to give any ground to an opposing side for fear that this may erode our identity or call into question what we have been conditioned by this positionality to believe is right about the perspective we hold. It takes a strong person however, who is guided by truth, solidarity and the integrity that strives to cohere elements into a whole, to rail against this egocentric temptation, and not many are evolved enough to look beyond what they want to achieve in winning the battle of ideas to generate a win-win outcome that can be fruitful for all of those persons sitting at the table together. Despite this being a rarity, you and I can develop ourselves to want to find this shared space of mutual flourishing, and have this be the base that we orient ourselves from to reconcile division or conflict in the domains we occupy.
Performative insincerity has a scent, and so does genuine authenticity. People can tell when you are merely an avatar parroting an ideology for a tribe or base – Have you ever watched an interview and observed a guest who doesn’t really answer any of the questions posed to them and just responds with what appears to be segments of a mental script filled with buzzwords or ideological talking points? I remember taking in such a performance by a woman, convinced of the modern prevalence of systemic racism, on Piers Morgan Uncensored. Despite this woman being presented with evidence against her hyperbolic and selective claims about the phenomenon, she bulldozed forward, talking rapidly in conveying her ideological views that she wasn’t interested in having challenged by others who would take a different position. As I listened to her rattling off one talking point after another that I had previously heard spewed by others who were similarly indoctrinated into a progressive woke ideology, it occurred to me that this woman was in essence merely an avatar for the ideas she was putting forwards, and that you could have put any other person who thought the same way in front of that camera, and their vacuity would have been similarly transparent to those who were watching. Hers was an agenda to push, not a reality to be elucidated. Had she been there to genuinely shed light on the matter by presenting a perspective that was informed by both anecdotal and empirical evidence, she would have taken a much softer and humbler line that was open and willing to be influenced by facts that contravened her initial presumptions.
Dr. L. Christian Duperouzel 