Do you have personal guidelines for argument? Things you try to do, things you try to avoid, etc.? I guess it depends on the purpose of why any given person engages - for me there are two main purposes I strive towards. First is to try and persuade. Second is to correct error. They don’t always go in that order, but in any case the reason I have my own guidelines is because I think those are most effective in accomplishing those two purposes. So here are mine:
[ul][li]Interpret generously, in a way that is both reasonable, and favorable to the opposition[/li][li]Take on the best and strongest arguments of your opponents[/li][li]Ignore weak or trivial disagreements that are not critical to the main points of disagreement[/li][li]Identify and confirm the main points of disagreement[/li][li]Answer direct questions fully. When making statements, make them clear and specific. Avoid hedging as much as possible.[/li][li]Acknowledge potential counter arguments[/li][li]Clarify ambiguous statements[/li][li]Unless there is an obvious issue like using the Onion or some other parody, if someone offers a cite that may be less than objective, overlook the opportunity to attack the source and focus on what about the particular information offered is poor.[/li][li]Don’t JAQ off. It’s transparent as much as it is tempting to respond. Ignore when others JAQ off.[/ul][/li]
Some of these are aspirational for sure, but that’s me.
I don’t argue as a rule, because I can’t think of a time when I want to change someone’s mind. I’m not sure I have that right. I negotiate all the time for a living, though. I explain the facts as I understand them, you do the same, we discuss what we think that means. You tell me what you want and why, I tell you what I want and why, if both sides are open to compromise, I suggest one and explain how it meets your desires, you do the same. If both sides are not open to compromise, we’re done and the issue remains unresolved.
As soon as it gets disrespectful or overly emotional, we’re done and the issue remains unresolved.
To me, arguing is pointless as most people do it. Discussions are about facts, and arguments are caused by the friction generated between facts/logic and emotions/irrational desires. The last really heated discussion I had with a non-relative was with a co-worker about the inflated price of books thru iTunes compared to Kindle e-books, because he refused to believe Apple was charging more to simply make money; though he had no proof, he was certain they were adding some value that justified the expense and was upset that I saw this as a typical corporation chasing profits. I tried to bail with a simple “I’m sure you must be right” once I realized I was in a religious argument but he was too upset to let it go…
If someone disagrees with me, my first priority is to understand why, that is, what exactly are they saying and believing that is different from what I am saying and believing. Often if you investigate dispassionately, you’ll find out that differences are smaller than you thought at first.
I generally don’t try to persuade anyone to change their opinion about something. I might express my point of view, but if they disagree, well, that’s life. This is how, for example, that I (a confirmed atheist) am able to peacefully interact with my sister (born-again Christian) even when she insists that everything good that happens to her is because of her relationship with Jesus, and anything bad that happens to her is due to her own shortcomings or failure to understand. She knows better than to try to proselytize me, and I know better than to try to persuade her towards a more rational worldview. We get along.
On the other hand, where I have actual factual citations to hand I have no problem correcting someone else’s factual mistake. To my mind, that is not an argument as much as a possible contest of citations or sources. There may be conflicts between sources, and then you can either dig deeper or agree to disagree.
There are some rules of thumb, but no rules carved in stone.
Rule of Thumb (ROT): I try not to be more than 85% certain that I’m right.
ROT: I limit myself to restating my position three times.
ROT: I try to be more considerate of honorable people I disgree with than of people that I do agree with.
Addendums: If I’m waayyy more than 85% sure I’m right I usually won’t argue with someone who holds the opposing view. They’re essentially delusional and have lost the thread of reality — I might try to build support with others in our shared social group.
Most of my arguments are with CS reps at 800 numbers. If I don’t win fairly quickly, I say “Let me speak to your supervisor.” People with authority to make decisions usually have the intellect and understanding to know when somebody presents a valid point.
I don’t argue on the Dope. In music threads, some folks make absolute statements, to which i usually reply with something along the lines of “that’s, like, your opinion, man.”
In philosophy threads, I angle for discussion rather than argument. I play back what I’ve read and try to go from there, rather than cut off and redirect.
I don’t argue politics or other issues I have a strong belief in here - not why I come here.
The whole point of a discussion is to learn, imo. Either learn what the other person thinks about a subject (hopefully with new info) or them learning my thoughts on it. For me, I define “argument” as the point where things get heated, and anger is entering the situation. No one learns when their defense are up, and at that point it’s time to stop.
My internal rules are:
I do not discuss politics or religion at work. Ever. If a conversation heads toward those subjects, I politely find a reason to leave. Since late 2016, I been avoiding these subjects almost totally in the rest of my life (online, at the bar, etc.). I’m not changing my mind, you’re not changing yours, why bother?
In face to face discussions, you can interrupt me twice. The second time I stop talking - literally. Rudely stopping me mid-sentence is a clear statement my views are of no interest, therefore I shouldn’t waste my effort.
Try to stay calm and reasonable. Also attempt to learn as much as I can about the other person; their general view and how they form opinions or assimilate information.
For me its the first person to say “Jane you ignorant slut”.
I can’t really come up with any rules that aren’t situational, without making them extremely complicated. The only basic ones I can think off offhand is that “anger does not make someone wrong” and “people have a right to their feelings.” (This means no telling someone “calm down,” which never helps. Actually help them be calmer by listening to their feelings. Or, if you can’t, don’t engage.)
I guess “always determine the purpose of your argument” is a good one, as it allows you to decide how to approach things. If you’re arguing to find a solution, your approach will have to be different than arguing to convince someone. And then there’s a difference in whether or not you’re arguing to convince the other party or to convince a wider audience. (The latter is far more common online.) And, yes, sometimes you’re arguing to just show how the other person is wrong or to express anger, and I don’t think that is wrong–it just may not be the most productive use of your time.
It’s also important to realize whether “agree to disagree” is a possible resolution. That can change a lot, too.
That’s all that’s coming to mind right now. Well, that and that it’s wrong to enjoy the suffering of others (with a temporary exception if they are genuinely evil), but that’s a general thing.
Oh, there’s one. A statement of taste, no matter how forcefully given, is just a statement of taste, and there’s no point in arguing about it at all or chastise people for not expressing it less forcefully. I just share my own opinion or don’t say anything. (Or, in real life, I may say something vaguely positive and then move on.)
It’s similar to the “everyone has a right to express anger” aspect, which I decided I want to give an example. I know a lot of people in webcomic forums who get very passionate about what they dislike on a comic. Rather than tell them to “chill, it’s only a comic,” I think it’s better to just try and understand where they are coming from. Saying “chill” will only make them feel like they are being dismissed.
And I propose that this holds in real life, and that a whole lot of the whole “outrage culture” is really just people upset that their anger isn’t being acknowledged, and thus inspires even more anger. And then the other side gets angry that you’re anger, and it’s a never-ending cycle.
I am what you would call “pro gun,” and I am a bit perturbed when others on my side use faulty logic when arguing against gun control. Their biggest sin is what I call, “The problem with implications.” (There is probably a better term for it, but I don’t know what it is.) They will say something along the lines, “Gun control doesn’t work! Assault weapons are only used in 400 murders a year, which is a lot less than the number of people killed in vehicles crashes, etc.”
Here’s the problem: they’re implying that, if gun control did work, then gun control would be O.K. And if assault weapons were used in more murders, then it would be O.K. to ban them.
