Rules for Argumentation or Debate to Succeed (or Fail) by (Part 1)

Photo by Mikhail Nilov on Pexels.com

Of late, I have been giving some thought to what makes for a productive debate or argument, which has prompted me to outline some orienting principles below that others can use to partake in more fruitful dialogue on matters of importance. Another reason why I want to set these out is as a means of holding myself accountable to these rules as I move forward in my career, which isn’t always easy, especially when what is being discussed is quite emotive by nature (I’m conscious that I’m writing this on Australia Day so perhaps they spirit of the times as it concerns this occasion has attuned me to this reality). You may have noticed above that I used the word ‘productive’ to describe the aim of what a debate should seek to achieve, and not ‘victorious’, because I think that if our primary motivation is to win a debate/argument, then we will be too ready to transgress these principles at the cost of establishing common ground, demonstrating respect, and the facilitation of mutual understanding that can form the basis of collaborative problem solving. In this analysis, I’m also not going to focus on the body language and voice components of these interactions, as it is my view that the importance of these factors is often overstated and hyped by experts who see them as a means of ‘hacking’ a desired outcome in this context. With that out of the way, here I go with my rules:

1. Subjugate your ego – In a debate/argument, the primary goal of your ego will be to win, be right and to exert the force of your will on the other party to tilt the dialogue in your favour. In the process of doing this, you will be reducing not just the other person, but also what they have to say, to a means that you think will make you look good, or superior, in relation to your perceived opponent. In reality though, it will be blatantly apparent to others what you are doing and they will go on the defensive. For the person you are debating, this will evoke them to engage their own ego, and for those who are listening or watching, in their judgment you will lose credibility and respect as they realise your self-interest in winning the debate at all costs is going to trump any good faith attempt to listen to the other person and come to a resolution that honours the best of what both sides have to offer. This is the higher road that the ego won’t let us travel down because at the end of the day, it won’t allow us to give any ground to those who it feels dare to oppose or critique our position. It also doesn’t help that social media platforms incentivise egocentric behaviour in debate that serves as a bad example of how dialogue should be conducted (videos where it is described that someone is being ‘schooled’, ‘owned’, ‘dunked on’ or ‘destroyed’, for example, are boosted by the algorithm to drive engagement for those content creators).

2. Don’t prejudge, and be open to what the other person has to say – It is very tempting to want to put someone into a box and paint a broad stroke picture of them based on positions they have taken in the past, but try to avoid this as there is inevitably much more to this person than what they reveal at the surface level of their being. By all means, be conscious of what they have said to signal where they stand on issues, but if you can not pre-judge and be open to who they are and what they have to say, a space will be created where their depth of insight and nuance can emerge to better inform the discussion at hand. Not only does this serve them, but it also serves you and what should be a starting intention of yours to find a middle ground.

People are normally very appreciative of, and inclined to look very favourable upon, others who can create this space for their authentic voice to come forth. Being an exercise in allowing vulnerability, what can often impinge our ability or desire to do that for another is our own fear of being vulnerable in their presence. When you see someone in debate who is leading from their ego, this is often what is going on. It is worth appreciating also that debates by their nature are also forums of personal exposure in the sense that even if we are putting our best foot forward, we risk appearing as though we are out of our depth or looking stupid, which is one of the underlying components of the grave fear that many have around public speaking. Having the grace to allow the person we are speaking to to articulate what they have to say without the fear of scorn or censure, also works out favourably for the person granting that gift as the audience is more likely to extend grace to them for any faux pas they may commit in the course of the discussion. Such is the room that our goodwill affords.

When we don’t try to pigeonhole others and are actually open to receiving more of who they are and the insights they possess, we also expand our potential to learn something valuable that we did not know, and that can better inform our own views on the matter at hand. Just the other day, I heard something along the lines that what you or I know is less than .001% of all things that are learnable. In terms of total knowledge that we are yet to accrue, this might even be a generous estimate. While I know a few things about areas of interest such as leadership, vocation, the law and basketball, I know exceedingly little about things such as aviation, astronomy, gastronomy, croquet and Senegalese culture (to mention only a fraction of things that I know but a sliver about). Therefore, if I encounter someone who has knowledge of those things, and mentions them in a context relevant way during the course of a debate, it would behove me to become completely teachable in those moments, especially given the reasonableness of not expecting any one person to have access to the full spectrum of knowledge, and the lack of shame associated with that. Even the greatest polymaths have their limitations, and those who present as galaxy-brained in debates are liable to come across as fools as they overreach on topics that they know very little about. Best then not to be like them, when we can pre-emptively learn from their mistakes.  

The Gold in the Golden Rule

If there ever was a fundamental life law, the Golden Rule would be it. Quite simply, it guides us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Having its basis in the notion of reciprocity, it teaches that how we act in the world will come to dictate how the world treats us in kind. Given the interconnected nature of our human relationships, it reminds us not to view ourselves as separate beings in a physical world, but as spiritual interweavers of the reality we create.

Being bound together at the most essential level by what we cannot see with our physical eyes, what also escapes our attention are the effects that come from our mode of relating to the world. This inattention is magnified when we live from the unconsciousness of the ego and see ourselves as isolated individuals who are largely powerless and acted upon by the various instruments of society. Relating to the world in this untethered and often victimised way, we are confounded by how the world seems to treat us in ways that are not to our liking, while being oblivious to the causal role that we are playing in bringing about these outcomes.

Even if we are not intentionally acting in ways that bring harm to others (or to ourselves for that matter), our naivety will have us pay a price as we bump up against the world in clumsy ways that draw forth rebukes from others. If we know no better than to conceive of ourselves as a rational economic actor, for example, we will think it is perfectly normal to act in self-interested ways (and we all do this to an extent), but if this is the baseline of how we approach the interactions that we have with other people in our life, we will naturally encounter the resistance of them engaging in the same pattern of relating to us. As they detect the risk of being exploited by our self-interest, in a very real sense, we trigger that reaction in them by not coming to the encounter with a more holistic vision in mind, and a willingness to exercise the responsibility for generating a more prosperous and mutually beneficial outcome.  

When we live in alignment with our spiritual source of being, we move forth in the world with a recognition of our hard wired agency, and can use that to have transformative impacts in the world. Instead of acting out of ego-based self-interest, we can serve the broader interest and foster the collective understanding and collaboration that is necessary at this moment in time if we are to meet our greatest challenges. With this perspicacity we can cut through all of the distorting clutter that is brought about by our preoccupation with things such as identity categories or the ideologies that we allow to define so much about who we are. As these barriers to connecting with our true spiritual selves lead us forward, we will never allow ourselves to evolve beyond an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ worldview. Just as the tribalism generated from this outlook has caused us numerous problems in the past, so will it continue to perpetuate the dysfunction that we bring about in the future if we let it.

The gold in the Golden Rule is the integrity that we find in its authentic expression. Within each of us is both givenness and receptivity living and breathing as it does in the natural environment (take trees for example with their givenness of oxygen and receptiveness to absorbing carbon dioxide and water). Being complementary processes that are necessary for their wholeness to be complete, we cannot have one without the other. Without givenness, there is nothing to be received, and without receptivity, givenness goes to waste. Together, they close the circle which brings meaning to our existence (through service of our highest gifts) and more prosperous communal life (through the offerings of each member being utilised). Starved of givenness, one becomes overwhelmed in their consumption; bereft of the ability to be receptive, one remains internally malnourished.

No healthy organism can expect to thrive when it is parasitic to its own nature. Is it any wonder then why we languish under the weight of withholding our greatest gifts from the world, and the manifestation of virtues like love and truth in our relationships with others? It shouldn’t be with the timeless wisdom of the Golden Rule present as a guide to remind us of what we mirror in every moment that we move in the world. And we can’t not choose action, so we should pay heed to the lesson.