How To Debate
What Stopped Public Discourses
Most of us don’t spend time with people whose beliefs differ from ours. If we do, we rarely discuss our differences. We chitchat about the weather; not climate change , our vacation; but not poverty in that country.
*It’s not out of uniformity that new ideas arise.
*Shutting up about our beliefs keeps us close-minded and allows us not to be called out. When we have a crazy idea and keep it to ourselves, there’s less chance someone will say, “Are you nuts, Nikhil!”
*https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-free-speech-is-under-attack-in-the-u-s/
*Discussion protects science and democracy.
*Persuasuian
It’s hard to get someone’s attention long enough to create change but most discussions don’t move forward to an educated, empirical, and scientific conclusion.
Nine times out of ten a discussion ends with each contestant more firmly convinced that he is absolutely right. Both sides lack the humility to accept when they’re wrong. Then they feel humiliated, get defensive and get angry.
*The act of teaching someone a lesson rarely succeeds at changing them.
*how likely is someone willing to change his opinion.
The 3 Stages of Disagreement
- They’re ignorant: Since we believe we speak facts, we conclude that those who disagree with us haven’t been exposed to the right information . That they’re ignorant. That if only they were exposed them to the facts it would bring them to our side.
- They’re idiots. After we’ve tried to enlighten them and they still don’t agree with us, we assume they’re idiots. We’ve given them the facts but they still don’t understand. Thus, they don’t possess the same level of intelligence that we do.
- Lastly, they’re evil. After even more convincing and they still don’t get it, we assume they’ve turned their backs against humanity, that they lack morality, and are ultimately evil.
By assuming and concluding that those who disagree with us are ignorant, idiots or evil, we remain closed-minded. Evnd, even worst imagine what would happen when we assume that those who disagree with us are evil. That they’re villains bent on destruction of the nation. This escalation can lead to violence.
It’s hard to change minds who haven’t thought about and read about a topic for years.
*School textbooks present history as facts and answers. But, historians, emphasize that history is a series of arguments, issues, and controversies.
Debates are the Solution
Open, unrestricted, and hearty discussions refine good ideas, improve old theories, produces new perspectives, beliefs, and expand our understanding. New words change how we think.
Differences, however, add to our knowledge and our understanding of the world. If two people have the same opinion, one is kind of unnecessary. I don’t want to talk to someone who agrees with me. I want to talk to someone who sees it completely differently. When I do this, I increase my own knowledge.
*The strength of a friendship is in having different point of views.
Debates are why we have two parties in Congress. One party says, “We have a great idea.” The other says, “Wonderful! Put it on the table.” Ideas are debated and after a while the first party says, “We withdraw our great idea. We forgot about those views.”
I see an old woman, you see a young lady. This is wealth. I see it differently, now help me see what you see.
Welcome disagreement. Try to understand it. By discussing, we awaken reason and force ourselves to think.
To cure false information. Science and democracy thrive on openness and willingness to be judged.
At its inception in 1660, the Royal Society pushed for what was then a radical new approach: It allowed new findings to be discussed openly and published for all to read.
True intelligence can only be had by unrestricted, healthy, and respectful debate.
How To Debate
First, we need to understand the person is coming from. They may be uninformed but they’re not immoral. They’re just people who see the world differently. They live in a different model of the world. They have a different vision of how the future should look like. They live in a different reality. They have different beliefs about what is moral/right. All political questions are in essence moral questions. Conservatives have a different perception of morality and empathy.
The 2 Moral Models
George Lakoff observed that conservatives frame their morality from the “strict father model.” A strict father is the moral authority and master of the household. He towers over the mother and children and imposes needed discipline. Here are some political values: hierarchical authority, individual discipline and military might. Marriage in this worldview is heterosexual. The father is manly, strong, decisive, and dominating — a role model for sons, and for daughters a model of a man to look up to.
Here’s conservative hierarchy: God above man; man above nature; adults above children; Western culture above non-Western culture; America above other countries. This extends to the oppressive views of some far-right conservatives: men above women, Christians above non-Christians, whites above nonwhites, and straights above gays.
Progressives have a different moral worldview. George Lakoff called it “the nurturant parent model.” Progressives look at a nation as a family. The state is like a mother, it protect. What do you protect your children from? Crimes, drugs, smoking, cars without seat belts, poisonous additives in food, a dirty and toxic environment.
This model has two equal parents whose job is to nurture their children. The progressive’s highest value is helping individuals who need help. They teach: be equal, not superior. A conservative’s highest value, on the other hand, is freedom and superiority. In fact, conservatives own the words freedom, liberty and patriot.
When Talking to the Debater
1. Genuinely show cooperation and admit that you may be wrong.
Don’t dictate or boss people. They’re not wrong, they’re currently wrong. So, never begin by telling them they’re wrong or “I’m going to prove to you.” Strucking a blow at their intelligence, judgment, pride, and self-respect. That’s like saying, “I’m smarter than you. Let me tell you a thing or two.” This will make them want to strike back instead of listen to you. On top of that, now they’ll never agree with you.
Keep emphasizing that you’re both striving for the same ends but that the only difference is probably the method, not the purpose. Finally, promise them that you’ll think over and study their ideas carefully. For example:
“Thank you for discussing with me. We’re both interested in the same topic, we both want o get to the truth and I know we both love this country. I love what you’re doing in xyz and I know deep down you’re a good person. I want you to know that I genuinely consider your ideas and feelings as important as mine. I may be wrong, heck I’ve been wrong so many times, and if I’m wrong, I want to be put right.”
It’s always easier to listen to unpleasant things after we’ve heard some praise of our good points. (First, tell a girl she’s pretty then tell her something you want her to improve.) So, let the other person know that they’re right, beautiful, important, logical and their interest are important.
If you’re going to prove anything, don’t let anyone know it. As Alexander pope said, “Men must be taught as if you taught them not. And things unknown proposed as things forgot.”
*Both sides deserve respect.
*Can I play devil’s advocate.
*We become good at deliberating only by entering the arena, weighing the alternatives, arguing our case, ruling and being ruled. This is what being a citizen in a democracy is about.
and teach their children to nurture others.
2. Use humor
3. Discuss things you have in common.
Look for areas of agreement and talk about it for a long time. You don’t convince people by challenging their longest and most firmly held opinions. You find common ground and work from there. Or you look for leverage to make them listen. Or you create an alterative with so much support from other people that your opposition voluntarily abandons his view. When we connect with people about what we have in common –sports teams, TV shows, interests– it is easier to have dialogue about what we disagree on. As Benjamin Franklin said, “Would you persuade, speak of interest, not of reason.”
*dwell first on the points and areas on which you agree.
4. Listen
Listen to what each person has to say before venturing your own opinion. Only wise, tolerant, and exceptional people will even try to do this.
Try to understand people that are opposite of you. To disagree with a person or an idea you must first understand them and their ideas well. When a lawyer prepares a case, they often prepares the opposite’s case first.
Don’t judge or evaluate when they speak. As Carl Rogers said, “When someone expresses some feeling, attitude or belief, our tendency is almost immediately to feel “that’s right” or “that’s stupid”, “that’s abnormal”, “that’s unreasonable”, “that’s incorrect”, “that’s not nice.” Very rarely do we permit ourselves to understand precisely what the meaning of the statement is to the other person.”
So, try to honestly to put yourself in their place and find a way to understand them. Instead of saying they’re wrong, ask why they choose that side. If you say to yourself, “How would I feel, how would I react if I were in his shoes?” you’ll save yourself time and irritation.
Then the magic phrase that can stop arguments, eliminate ill feeling, create good will, and make the other person listen attentively: Acknowledge the strengths of your opponent’s argument. So, “I don’t blame you one iota for feeling as you do. If I were you I would undoubtedly feel just as you do. I’d think the same thing in your position. But…” Take time to explain the situation.
*“And why do you think that is?”
“Patience serves us against insults precisely as clothes do against the cold. For if you multiply your garments as the cold increases, that cold cannot hurt you; in the same way increase your patience under great offences, and they cannot hurt your feelings.” -Leonardo
5. Ask for definitions
Every time someone hollers “radical liberal,” or “socialist”, ask for their definition of “liberal” and “socialist.”
6. Keep insults to yourself
Your opponent is more likely to remember your negative comments than positive ones. Negativity weighs more heavily on the brain. So, be gentle. Don’t attack the person, instead challenge their perspective and ideas. This is a famous concept in philosophy called “ad hominem.” It means attack the idea, not the man.
On top of that, being too logical as to make the other person feel stupid or will only lead to an emotional response that continues the argument.
And never use words and expression that imported a fixed opinion such as: certainly, undoubtedly. Instead say, “I imagine it to be so or so”, or “it appears that….”
7. Don’t counter like a blazing assault rifle.
Spurting studies and facts won’t do much. Your argument may be factually indisputable and logically airtight but if it doesn’t resonate with the recipient, you won’t get anywhere. On top of that, they won’t remember those studies and stats in 1 hour.
*People don’t respond to raw data.
*For progressives today, it’s not enough to have facts and science on our side. You can’t reason people out of positions.
Furthermore, most people don’t understand how valid a scientific fact is — like smoking causes cancer — (i.e. the scientific method). To them, a scientific fact has the strength as any other opinion.
*As George Lakoff famously said, “When the facts don’t fit the model, the model stays and the facts are ignored.”
*
Instead, firstly ask if you can share your opinion. “Can I share something with you?” Then you have 3 options: Question, story or metaphor.
8. Socratic method
Socrates was one of the wisest persuaders who ever influenced the debating world. He didn’t tell people they were wrong. He persuaded by asking questions which his opponent had to agree — i.e. “yes, yes, yes” responses. Finally, almost without realizing it, his opponents found themselves embracing a conclusion they would have bitterly denied a few minutes ago. And keep them from saying “No.” This technique was called the “Socratic method.”
So, instead of ramming your opinion down your opponent’s throat or forcing them to accept your point of view — which creates confrontation — there’s a reason why your opponent thinks and acts as he does. Become a humble enquirer, ferret out this reason and make it a joint effort. Let the other person think by asking him gentle questions, directing their focus, making suggestions, and let them to come up with answers. Do this and you’ll have the key to his actions and perhaps even to his personality.
*Use Questions lead when debating.
*A useful thing to do is to use rhetorical questions: Wouldn’t it be better if…Or, wouldn’t we all be better off if everybody with diseases and illnesses could be treated so that diseases and illnesses wouldn’t spread? Or, wouldn’t it be better if all kids were ready for school when they went to kindergarten?
On a side note: Socrates demanded that everything be questioned. He famously said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”
When your opponent uses this tactic — they will — don’t answer their question framed from their point of view. Always reframe the question to fit your values and your frames.
As you can start to see, a debate isn’t about beating your opponent into accepting your point of view but it’s really to do battle with yourself.
9. Tell Stories
People remember stories like Adam and Eve, the forbidden apple. A story fills out the picture. It includes some data to portray a sense of magnitude but not too much.
*Metaphors and stories are far more potent than ideas; they are also easier to remember and more fun to read
A good story includes the passage of time (to show change), a problem that’s similar but not exactly the same. Show the cause that lead to a particular situation and the consequences that result from it. A concept, an idea, a data point makes a much stronger impression once a story is first told. Then at the end tie it back: “that person is you.”
Frame your story with what conservatives already believe unconsciously.
*When we debate against a conservative using their language, their frames, and their metaphors, we’re activating and reinforcing their frames and undermining ours. We should instead use our language. A moral alternative that’s traditionally American, that lies behind everything Americans are proud of.
Here’s an example:
Your friend says, “Unions are corrupt and run by thugs. They force you to join and just take your money.” Your response: “Unions make you free — free from being a slave to a company. Without a union, you have to take whatever wage the company offers, often with no pension or medical care, with no constraints on hours or scheduling, and no guaranteed overtime pay. I wouldn’t want to be a slave to a company I work for. I want to be able to eat dinner with my family and have weekend time with my kids. Unions created weekends. People used to have to work six-day weeks for less pay than they get now. Unions created eight-hour days when people used to work ten or twelve for no more pay. Unions put you on an even basis with the company.
So, build up a stock of effective stories.
10. Use metaphors
These are great to win arguments.
The day that George W. Bush arrived in the White House, the phrase “tax relief” came out. It was repeated almost every day, used by the press and slowly it became such a part of public discourse that liberals also started using it.
Think of the word “relief.” For there to be relief, there must be an affliction, an afflicted party, and a reliever who removes the affliction and is therefore the hero. And if people try to stop this hero, they’re villains for trying to prevent relief.
President Bush also said, “We don’t need a permission slip to defend America.” He could have just said, “We won’t ask permission.” But talking about a permission slip is more powerful. Think about the last time you needed a permission slip. Think about who has to ask for a permission slip. Think about who is being asked. Think about the relationship between them. What Bush did was evoke the adult–child metaphor. He said, “We’re the adult in charge.”
When individual freedom is attacked, it’s a “government takeover.” And every time a progressive said, “It’s not a government takeover,” the brain didn’t register the “not” and thus the frame “government takeover” was reinforced.
Nixon found this out the hard way. While under pressure to resign during the Watergate scandal, he said “I am not a crook.” And everybody thought about him as a crook.
Obama also found this out in the hard way. Telling people that Barack Obama is not a Muslim fails to change many people’s minds, because they frequently remember everything that was said — except for the crucial qualifier “not.” Experts trying to confront this kind of stubborn ignorance may think they’re helping, when in fact they’re basically throwing water on a grease fire.
When the conservatives invented “Obamacare” instead of using “Affordable Care Act”, they took the emphasis off the affordability of health care and associating Obamacare with government takeover and death panels. The press again used the term “Obamacare” and not the clunky name Affordable Care Act. Obama tried, in vain, to turn this to his advantage — saying it meant “Obama Cares.” But it was too late. The conservatives had given the name the meaning they wanted by frequent repetition.
So, use metaphors and images powerful enough to persuade others.
11. Don’t pretend your argument is perfect.
If you make an argument that promises all benefits and no costs, your opponent won’t buy it ever. If you want your argument to be taken seriously, you have to say the potential downsides.
In the midst of World War II, a great federal judge, Learned Hand, said that the spirit of liberty is “that spirit which is not too sure that it is right.”
12. Keep repeating your good points.
13. Postpone action
This gives both sides time to think through the problem. Suggest a new meeting be held later when all the facts may be brought to bear.
*Conservatives are defining freedom in their own way. We have to fight definition with definition. #debate
*Once I had an irate that was complaining about me, cursing at me, threatening to get my name and report me to the company. I later found out his son had just died. Now when I meet an irate, I pretend something traumatic has happened in their lives.
*Anecdotes selected to fit a story do not constitute evidence.
*Each of you has come up with reasons why we can’t eliminate the need for jails. Will you do me a favor? Will you try extra hard for a few minutes to believe we can eliminate jails?
*Look at other’s weaknesses with compassion, not accusation.
*We take our precious democracy for granted. Democracy requires discussion, it requires belief in human beings, all human being, both left and right. But discussion is only possible if people trust each other, have empathy and try fairly to find the truth.
*Part of emphathy is understanding that everyone is trying to do the same.
*The language we use influences us.
*It’s hard to win in politics but you can narrow the range of disagreement and solutions. #debate
*The view that this authoritarian threat can be defused by converting those who would abandon the Constitution “to get things done” through persuasion and empathy is contradicted by both social science and electoral fact. Study after study has documented that efforts to change political opinions through rational argument and the deployment of fact changes few minds and often hardens opinions instead.
*If there are words, facts, or empathy that can change those views, no credible evidence to support the strategy has been presented.
To your success,
Nikhil Mahadea
