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.  

Sorry, Not Sorry (Some thoughts on Apologies) (Part 2)

7. When dealing with irrational and emotionally driven people (particularly online) don’t be naïve enough to assume that an apology will ward off criticism or personal attacks for something you have said or done. In the age of cancel culture, many people have a predetermined axe to grind, and they will bay for the blood of those ‘others’ who are ideologically opposed to their way of seeing the world. In the eyes of these people, what is said or done will be interpreted in the worst possible light, even amid inevitable ambiguities and alternate intentions that can describe your conduct. This is because these people need to not only validate but also defend their own identity and worldview as ones that are right and virtuous. To this end, they can give no ground. Give them an inch by offering an apology, and they will take a mile in trying to destroy your reputation. Better your reputation than their worldview, if they were actually forced to examine the tenuous basis on which it rests.

Sadly, for these people, tearing others down is how they seek to build themselves up, but personal power can never be achieved in this way. Knowing this will enable you to preserve your own power in dealing with these bullies. By all means, if you have said something that is genuinely and objectively offensive then apologise unreservedly, but short of this, hold the line and wait for their wrath to be redirected to someone else who has repeated your cardinal sin of speaking against their dogma. You can hold your breath as it won’t be long coming. Insatiable predators of this type need fresh meat to consume and they won’t have the discipline or fortitude to continue haranguing you when confronted with your conviction to defend your ground at all costs.  

8. An apology should never be given instrumentally, as in, offered to another person to get something from them, or to stop them from doing something that we find challenging to deal with. Often in romantic relationships, for example, there are fundamental issues impacting the union that we don’t want to confront, so in the heat of an argument we might opt to shut it down by apologising for something that we have done to appease our partner’s angst. On the one hand, it is a good thing to have apologised for our actions if they have caused harm to the other person, but on the other, the underlying tensions that are present have now become further buried and exacerbated. I say exacerbated because if the other person in the relationship bears some responsibility for the substance of the argument and they have been let off the hook for not having to accept that responsibility by apologising themselves, the resentment that is produced in the person apologising will add another layer to the discontent that they feel in relating to their partner. While this may temporarily keep the peace, over a greater span of time it is likely to lead to passive-aggressive or even overtly aggressive behaviour when the top inevitably blows on that long brewing bottle of tensions. Reconciliation is not a one-way street, and the impetus for it requires the courage to truth tell by all those who seek a better quality of relationship.

9. I like the saying that ‘the best apology is changed behaviour’. Said another way, actions speak louder than words. It’s very easy to mouth an apology, but much harder to change behaviour that signifies our contrition for the harmful conduct previously engaged in. I think one of the sources of resistance with this is our ego which doesn’t have to risk as much by just mouthing an apology than it otherwise would have to by showing to the world the error of our ways by changing our behaviour in relation to it. Rather than being seen through this lens of fallibility, we can choose to see our altered behaviour as a sign of growth and maturity where we are better adapting to what the world requires of us as a fully-functioning member of the human family. Here, I am talking about the duties that we owe to it and others in order to contribute to their flourishing. If you or I were to just remain as ego-driven and infantile agents, we wouldn’t care less about how our actions impacted the world around us because our focus would be serving ourselves in all things. But where is the growth in that, in seeking to bend the world to our whim and have it conform to the fragile construction of our ego identity and desire for what we think the world owes us? Such a perspective of entitlement is entirely incongruent with any search for enlightenment that must start with facing the mirror of reflection firmly on ourselves to dis-cover what is to be addressed and corrected.  

10. The willingness to apologise is in the domain of relationships an act of leadership. If you and I are arguing, the life of our relationship is stagnant. Nothing further will happen until someone moves to break that stalemate. Whoever steps forward to offer their hand in reconciliation is a leader in that moment. We also know that a fundamental virtue of leadership is the willingness of a person to own their share of the dysfunction that their behaviour has caused. Bad leaders do what: they put themselves in the position of a victim by blaming anyone and anything for the harm they have caused because they lack the courage and character to confront their behaviour. This gives them an out for having to apologise, but this comes at the extreme cost of their leadership authority and credibility. Respect once gained, can’t help but be lost, as this responsibility is abdicated at the foundational interpersonal/relational level. As we are so often wisely instructed, when presented with two paths, choose the higher road, which has been built by the better angels of our spiritual nature to release us of the petty shackles that the stubborn ego and its virulent sense of righteousness is want to bound us with.

Sorry, Not Sorry (Some thoughts on Apologies) (Part 1)

1. An apology is a basic act of remediation when our behaviour has caused harm to someone else. It reflects that we understand how we have hurt the person affected, which is important in not only mending the harm that has been produced by our actions, but also as an acknowledgement that we need to grow beyond that problematic behaviour.

2. An apology should never be scripted becomes it comes across as being insincere and having been curated by someone else. This is especially the case for famous people with a public relations team behind them. In the age of social media and artificial intelligence, the scrutiny for a fabricated apology will be intense, and no doubt more than a few eager internet sleuths will do their own investigations on whether the given apology was put together by ChatGPT (note to self, Ja Morant!). If an unscripted apology involves the display of raw emotion that is focused on the impact suffered by the other person, then it will likely be perceived as genuine. Beware though that apologetic displays of emotion can be histrionic and self-indulgent, and no one really wants to hear how the perpetrator’s bad behaviour towards others has caused them pain, or to feel a certain way about themselves, because they should not be the focus at that moment.

3. In many situations where people/organisations appear reluctant to offer an apology, or are delaying in doing so, chances are that lawyers have become involved and advised these entities not to offer an apology lest it be construed as an admission of guilt for which some form of liability would attach. The laws on this vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but there is a common acceptance that an apology offered shouldn’t be prejudicial to a defendant in a subsequent trial. No doubt, it is a sad reality that an apology can’t just be offered for conduct that has clearly caused another harm, but when potentially large sums of money are at stake in a pending lawsuit, this reluctance to do so is somewhat understandable.  

4. In most disputes, it is my experience that each party shares an element of responsibility for what has occurred. It is rarer than we might think for one person to be completely blameless relative to the behaviour that the other person has demonstrated in the situation. When adjudicating on such matters, I would tend, from a credibility standpoint, to look more favourably on the side who can accept their share of responsibility for what has occurred and apologise for their role in that conflict. After all, being willing to see one’s role and apologise for that is not only a marker of maturity, but also integrity and good faith.

5. Don’t apologise or feel guilty for things you haven’t done. None of us are responsible for acts that caused harm to others before we were alive, yet we live in an age of perverse activism where individuals are sought to be persecuted for past wrongs because of the identity markers they share with past offenders. This is clearly absurd. The sins of the father belong to the father, not to their progeny, especially if the work and way of being of that progeny is playing a role in progressing the world forward from the harms that were wrought by those sins. Those often making these claims are also not first-hand victims of the behaviour in question, yet they victimise themselves by trying to make you responsible for their perceived harm/disadvantage. Apologising to these people and pandering to their irrational sensitivities is in reality an affront to their dignity as human beings. By enabling their playing of the victim, you are denying them agency, and the opportunity to grow through the process of having to examine and correct their false beliefs. If you genuinely care about their evolution and flourishing, you will take that stand and remind them of the responsibility they have to heal their own misconceptions.  

6. How we say something to someone is distinct from what we say to them, and the manner of this communication may itself justify an apology being offered. This is something to be mindful of if you aren’t afraid of argumentation, and you tend to make your points emotively and with conviction. I have observed about myself that I can be quite uncompromising in countering positions that are rooted in ideology or prejudicial assumptions that are too general to be accurate. Having tact requires a consideration of how your messaging will land to have the desired effect. Remember, when you have the ability to just tell another what you had for lunch, this obviates the need to vomit it all over them in order to get your message across.

Tempering the Ego’s Deconstructivist Bent (Part 1)

In recent times, I have noticed an increasing amount of attention being given to tearing down or dismantling systems of power that are believed to benefit the interests of the few at the expense of the many. Whether the claim in justification for this is rooted in the economic inequalities or negative environmental externalities of capitalism, upending ‘the patriarchy’ or bringing an end to ‘systemic racism’, we are warned by these activists/reformists to brace for a ‘reckoning’ that in their minds will bring us closer to a utopian society in which everybody or a select view of oppressed groups will flourish in ways that they are being prevented from currently.

While I appreciate the sentiment that many of the systems that we have are not perfect and that they can be made better by our applied individual and collective effort, I think that these would be saviours of the world need to take a reflective breath and humbly assess their motivations for wanting to make the changes that they righteously propose. Are they doing so out of a genuine aspiration to evolve humanity forward or have they just allowed themselves to become possessed by a victim identity or a rebellious desire to oppose those in power? When I look out at the sense of grievance and visible anger that is embodied by these activists, I wonder whether they are seeing things clearly and are able to fully comprehend the potential consequences of what they are putting forward. While no doubt indignation is a powerful force for being able to effect positive change, it can also lead to an overcorrection of the prevailing condition that makes the reformed society just as worse but in a different way.

The socialist promise of Karl Marx has too often degenerated into a tyrannous communism, which the historical record of the Soviet Union, China and Cuba (among other nations) attest to. In the wake of Black Lives Matter protests and calls to defund the police, there has been a breakdown of law and order in ‘progressive’ cities which has undermined the public safety of all members of the populous (including African Americans who the sought defunding was intended to protect). Are these outcomes that these revolutionaries foresaw as they shouted to their followers about these systems being irretrievably broken? I doubt it, or perhaps they didn’t care if their genuine intention was to exact revenge against a social structure that they perceive has caused their suffering. What often masquerades as a yearning for justice is a less savoury thirst for vengeance that wants to inflict present harm for past harms that the agitators believe have not properly been remedied.

The truth is that not all change amounts to progress, and evolution can only be effected by a consciously attuned responsiveness to the problems presented by the complex workings of a system. Here, we must have the willingness to accept that systems are multifaceted and that our best efforts at fixing certain parts of them can produce weaknesses or failures in other parts. This is why eyes with a high resolution perspective must be cast over the entirety of these workings to gain a clear picture of what is going on. What can’t be viewed upon with clarity, can’t be pieced together with effectiveness, and emotionality with a prejudiced (pre-judged) perspective is a significant barrier to seeing correctly that gives rise to so much of the low resolution opinions that pervade our discourse in the modern era. Let me use the following as an example of what I am referring to here.

Whilst I appreciate the historical presence of racism and the continued prevalence of racism in society, I think that many accusations of ‘systemic racism’ are ill-formed and over-claimed in a way that is misleading and ultimately harmful to the purpose of creating institutions that encompass and serve all people. For a system to be inherently racist, it must in my opinion be constructed around the explicit or implicit purpose of supressing or discriminating against certain minority groups, and I think that in most instances, objective evidence can’t be found to support these types of accusations. Even if there are racists in a system, that doesn’t make the system racist, and rather than having to tear the system down to cleanse it of that stain, it would be much more expedient to weed out the racists so that you don’t have their contaminating influence present within the system. Taking such a step would be to progress the system, which would require considerably less effort than having to tear it apart and rebuild it in a way that is not even guaranteed to be better than before.