Rules for Argumentation or Debate to Succeed (or Fail) by (Part 4)

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

Remember the metaphorical talking stick; practice active listening – This one is so obvious that it is easily forgotten. Debate situations can be similar to many of our personal interactions where as our opponent is talking, we aren’t really listening to what they have to say, but are instead thinking about what we want to convey to them at the next opportunity. This mode of responding, if it can even be called that, is perhaps more heavily ingrained in a debate context because of the presentation format and the imperative that one has to make their own points during the limited time that they have to speak. Absent of this space to offer a considered argument in response to what your opponent has just said, which can induce a sense of pressure to ad lib on one’s feet, and it becomes understandable how one might recoil into defensiveness, or the safer position of reaffirming key points already made that give their position legitimacy.

But what does this accomplish in facilitating an understanding of the alternate position? Not much. When people are just talking past each other, the groundwork cannot be laid for consensus building or finding a potential resolution to the issue at hand. While a debate isn’t necessarily aiming for that outcome, I believe that the participant who can skilfully address their opponent’s main arguments while also emphasising the strength of their own position will enjoy greater persuasive power in the eyes of an audience. Demonstrating a willingness to empathise with an opponent’s position, when authentically embodied, is a potent quality that will distinguish you from them, especially if they are unable or unwilling to reciprocate for fear of coming off as weak to the audience. What they perceive to be their strength by refusing to give this ground will be interpreted as insecurity and pettiness, which can’t help but work in your favour. Be cautious though in using this as a manipulative tactic to turn a debate in your favour as the previous rule about performative insincerity having a scent will be just as applicable to you in the circumstances.

Use both anecdotal and empirical evidence to win others over to your side; appeals to emotion are the strategy of the desperate who will inevitably taste defeat – Whatever is your perspective on an issue that has been informed by your lived experience, that is by itself, not compelling enough evidence to validate your perspective as being generalisable across a broader representative sample. While it may be suggestive of a larger truth, we must reconcile this possibility with the epistemic humility which will bring us to the realisation that there are things beyond what we can see, or have allowed ourselves to see in the world. What I mean when I say ‘allowed ourselves to see’, are the biases, selective sampling of events and blind spots that have us perceive the world in a way that is consistent with our pre-judged beliefs about it. Out of this pre-judging comes a narrative story or ideological framework about how the world works which we can easily become overly invested in and emotive about when other people call its validity or accuracy into question. You see this emotionality spill out in debate settings quite often, to the detriment of those who don’t have the evidentiary support to back up their claims.

As human beings we react viscerally both to and with emotion (which animates our fight or flight response), so when confronted with a person arguing vehemently with anger or some other strong feeling, our inclination will be to verbally bite back just as hard, or to demonstrate a greater level of situational awareness in a debate context by adjusting our mode of communication to turn down the temperature of the interaction. Knowing the latter course to be the preferred option of most people who will choose to be agreeable when faced with opposition, our opponents will often use blusterous displays of emotion as a shield to protect themselves, or more accurately their tenuous position, from dissection and greater scrutiny. Yet, bringing to light the contamination of their own perspective is what we must do. Regardless of how a person feels about a topic or their subjective experience of it, they can’t be so hubristic as to deny the objective nature of what it is they are making claims about. Scientists know this. While they may have an idea of how an aspect of the world works based on their observations of particular phenomena, they don’t mistake their hypothesis for a truth claim, and using that as a starting point for inquiry, their next step will be to prove or disprove their hypothesis empirically in a laboratory experiment or other form of social study. Were they to go around dogmatically shouting at others the purported but as yet backed up truths they have found, they would be openly scorned as a pseudoscientific charlatan.

Like the Yin and Yang gives a visual representation of what appear to be opposing but are actually complementary forces at work, so must we come to appreciate the place that both anecdotal and empirical evidence have in leading us to the truth. Just as the capital ‘T’ Truth of reality is better grounded than any small ‘t’ truth claims that we subjectively hold, so must we be better grounded than in our emotions, and not fall hostage to the pull that they have towards self-serving narratives of righteousness (reflected in our position) and malevolence or ignorance (reflected in our opponent’s perspective). Ego fuelled indignation is a hell of a drug, and if we are not careful to temper its influence over our rational faculties, then we shouldn’t be surprised if people look at us as if we are crazy when we give it a voice.

Rules for Argumentation or Debate to Succeed (or Fail) by (Part 3)

Armor for Man and Horse Presumably Made for Baron Pankraz von Freyberg (1508u20131565) by Wolfgang Grosschedel is licensed under CC-CC0 1.0

The sad reality in many of these debate situations is that the participants are not there to listen to alternate perspectives that could open them up to a better understanding of reality, but just to be heard and feel an ego validating sense of righteousness from having said their piece publicly. In a different context, this explains much of the virtue signalling that we see from politicians, activists and heads of corporations who feel the pressure from their constituents to take a particular ideological line about some contentious issue. But this again is performative, because their message will be crafted to not genuinely reflect what they believe about what they are saying, but to avoid condemnation or elicit the support of their base that their power (and continued ability to have a platform) is dependent on.

Don’t strawman, but steelman, your opponent’s arguments – To clarify at the outset what these two terms mean, when a person strawman’s another person’s argument, what they are doing is reducing it to the lowest common denominator of its meaning, playing to tropes of the counter position, deflecting the substance of the argument, or tearing out the nuance of what gives it weight. An example of this would be if I were to say that ‘in all police and civilian interactions, there is an element of personal responsibility that needs to be exercised by civilians for how these interactions can go awry’, a strawmanning of this position could be ‘this claim blames the victim of police violence and is insensitive to the personal circumstances of the civilian that have led them to act as they have’. Rather than actually dealing with the substance of the initial proposition, what the person strawmanning is doing is inferring from what was not said, an intention that contravenes their ideological position. At no stage did the person putting forward the initial proposition say that the victim should be blamed, or fail to recognise the personal circumstances of a civilian that may have been harmed in a police interaction. Steelmanning, on the other hand, is when the person responding to the original claim acknowledges the substance of it, and even bolsters it by what they have to add to the discussion with their response. An example of this with the above scenario could be, ‘while the ultimate power in police/civilian interactions does rest with the officer, I agree that there are numerous things that are within the power of the civilian to do or not do that reduce the risk of the interaction escalating to violence or an arrest being made, for example, by them being honest and respectful in answering the officer’s questions’.

As you read both of these responses to the original claim made, how do they make you, as an independent observer, feel? I think that regardless of your ideological position on the issue of police/civilian interactions, most people would have a greater level of respect for the person who is steelmanning the original claim because they are demonstrating a genuine willingness to deal with the claim on its merits, and acknowledge whatever strengths it has, while also balancing their counterclaim with supplementary points that add weight to their own position. By comparison, it is hard not to pity the person who has to resort to strawmanning because what they are actually signalling by taking that road is that they don’t have the substance to either their argument, or critical thinking ability, to deal with what is actually being said without resorting to minimising behaviour that attempts to caricature the other person and the point they are making. To make matters worse for those who make it a habit of strawmanning others’ arguments is that when they are called out for engaging in that type of behaviour, they often become defensive and resort to ad hominem attacks in order to save face.

Understand here that the focus of steelmanning is a bit different from finding common ground at the outset of a debate. What it consists of instead is being able to give due recognition to the strengths of the argument that the other party puts forward, which in nearly every debate will be present if one cares to look beyond the narrow bounds of the position that they are advocating for. In the above example given, I don’t think that any reasonable person would deny that in police/civilian interactions, police officers have the ultimate power as members of this state apparatus to dictate how these interactions will resolve. But an equally valid truth is that how a civilian chooses to deal with the police officer in that interaction will go a long way to determining how the police officer either responds or reacts to their demonstrated behaviour. Two things, that appear to be in opposition for their validity, can both be true, and it is the person who can steelman rather than strawman their opponent’s position, who earns the credibility to have their more nuanced position listened to. The conditions of life are largely complex and multifaceted, and those who can wrestle with this tension while giving due recognition to alternate positions that speak to truth, will hold a gravitas that those who address contra-points in bad faith renounce themselves of.

Rules for Argumentation or Debate to Succeed (or Fail) by (Part 2)

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.

Aiming for Centre (Part 3)

To live from the ego is to care more about being righteously justified with our actions or having our myopic beliefs validated than being a conduit for truth, or doing good deeds that in their impact reverberate beyond the self-serving concerns of our tribe/s (how often have you heard the claim made that you need to think a certain type of way about an event in order to be on the ‘right side of history’). This is problematic on a number of fronts, not least because that attachment to being right will blind us to any errors in our worldview. What are commonly defined as ‘alternative facts’ that we can push to make the case for our ideological positioning have their roots in this denial, as the ego can’t tolerate having to face a reality that is different from the story it tells itself, and us, which we will uncritically digest to have our preferred identitarian constructions affirmed. Here, I am reminded of a Costanza-ism from one of my favourite sitcoms Seinfeld, where one of the main characters George puts forward that “it is not a lie if you believe it”.

But how grounding or mutually life enhancing is this perspective? If anyone reading this has ever seen that show, they will quickly come to realise what a dysfunctional cretin George’s character actually is, and taken outside of the realm of fictional comedy, the real-world effects of such a crooked ethic can have truly devastating consequences for vulnerable groups of people who are cast as sub-human by a dominant group that is intent on eliminating them or using them for instrumental purposes. History is replete with examples of this occurring to justify an appalling range of behaviours. For slave traders and owners to treat the people they ‘owned’ as chattel, they first had to conceive of those slaves as a lesser form of being. The same can be said of the Nazis who routinely dehumanised Jews by labelling them as ‘vermin’, ‘rats’ and ‘parasites’, or the Hutu militias, who in the Rwandan genocide commonly referred to the Tutsis as ‘cockroaches’.

Often it is the case that those who preach tolerance are the very people who are least capable of practicing it. Lying at the root of their hypocrisy is a fractured state of being that in its external manifestation will only serve to provoke opposition or exacerbate conflict. How often have you been in a discussion with someone and then the conversation goes off the rails when either they or you say something that is blatantly hypocritical? That dissonance may also involve behaviour that does not accord with one’s stated beliefs (the ‘do as I say, not as I do’ phenomena). I know in my own disagreements with other people that what will often trigger my anger away from any legitimate points they are making is when they perform mental gymnastics to claim something that benefits their argument while denying the contradiction or undermining of their previously stated position. When this occurs, what I find triggering is not that they might think differently than I do, but that they are willing to distort the truth to achieve an outcome that is favourable to them. I don’t think it would be too extreme to say that it is reprehensible for someone (including ourselves) to be willing to sacrifice the ‘capital T’ Truth that underpins reality in order to preserve the ‘small t’ subjective truth that is represented by their ideological worldview.

To have any hope of salvaging such an interaction, I would have to refrain from invoking my ego in kind and probe beyond their inconsistent logic to get at the heart of what is actually going on. While this remains challenging to accomplish as one remains a participant to a debate, an independent arbiter can fill that role and adjudicate on what the parties are putting forward. Here, we see another benefit of the centrist who by not having a proverbial dog in the fight can serve as an ally in brokering peace, or at least a common understanding between the parties that can form the basis of mutually beneficial action moving forward. As they occupy this neutral territory, they can also act as a conduit of what is fair and just between the parties. While serving in this role may command a certain level of respect because the centrist isn’t seen to have as much to gain from their involvement as the parties to the conflict, the drawback of their presence in the process is that they will inevitably draw the ire of one or both of the sides, who because of the determination made may feel a sense of diminishment or defeat. In professional sporting contests, the most abused person on the field is often the umpire, and in our working lives that same disgruntlement is often reserved for middle-managers who must serve as a go-between and reconcile the interests of the executive members of an organisation and the workers on the ground who report to them.