I get through to people relatively often. I feel, perhaps arrogantly so, that I'm one of the few who can do this at the moment. Which is concerning. I can't alone argue for every idea, and I'm going to be wrong more often than not because I don't have 12 PhD's. Without a significant increase in the number of people who knows how to argue in a way that gets through to people, I'm fighting an impossible uphill battle.
This will be a improvised guide. A "Laa's guide to debating in a way that actually changes minds"
- Identify where, when and who to debate
- Always go for the ball, never the person
- Realize the importance of feelings; do not rely solely on logic
- Admit your mistakes publicly and without shame. Admit your shortcomings in knowledge; humble yourself
- Analyze their assumptions; ask about them. Engage in the Socratic method whenever possible
- Analyze their points, answer only the points that are relevant, sometimes even less than that
- Be willing to let them plant a seed in your mind, just as you expect them to let you plant a seed in theirs
Let's go through the list!
1: Identify where, when and who to debate
You won't be able to pick debates willy nilly. People need to be in a specific place and be in a specific mood in order for them to be able to be receptive to a proper civil debate. For example, if you go to the socialist reddit and talk about how awesome capitalism is, it doesn't matter how great your points are, you will get slaughtered in the most cruel ways, at least for what is possible with words. (And vice versa, don't go to ancap's reddit and argue for socialism)
The place you want to find is one where both your idea and the idea that you're arguing against is somewhat popular, accepted or co-existing. Or, at the very least, a place where your idea isn't outright bashed. Bluemoon specifically is actually pretty neat in that regard, I've found. We come from a larger piece of the political spectrum than what is present on most sites, which ironically makes this porn site a great place to argue your case. And, this discussion forum isn't overly dominated by one political leaning or the other, evening if I do think there's more leftists than not. Yeap, life is weird.
Next comes the 'who' and 'when'. Do not engage with someone who is engaged with a lot of people. They might get overwhelmed. Do not engage with someone if someone else has already insulted them. Their defences will already be up, and they will not be receptive to ideas anymore. (You have no idea how frustrating it is to civilly argue with someone, only for a plethora of others to come in and hurl insults to them. If I got to them first, I might be able to continue the debate in a more private space)
You do not want to argue a case against someone who has not presented that case. You might throw up a ball, argue a case you want to defend in general, but you do not single out someone who is "on the other side" and start arguing against them as if they've argued a case they haven't. Only argue with that which exists, so to speak. I hope that makes sense.
Finally, you want to argue with a 'who' who comes off as civil, at least when they're not insulted. If they have a tonne of pizaz and 'style' to their arguments, rather than a more direct and humble or "in their own court" style, you might be in for a whirlwind if you argue with them. There's some people out there who debate as a sport, some who debate to troll, and it's important to learn how to distinguish them from a more honest participant. And no, being radically opposed to your ideas does not a troll make.
Sometimes you might get a lashback on the first reply in a debate; you can choose to soldier on to round 2, turning the other cheek. A lot of people are used to being insulted and will hence often swing insults first in order to get the initiative. When you show you have no intention of insulting them, these people may calm down. If they insult you again in round 2, ignore them.
The purpose of this is very simple: Spare yourself, spare your mental energy, do not engage at all with people who you do not have a chance with. There might be some exceptions to this, like, if there's a hate brigade on someone and you want to defend that person. Just know, in this case, your goal isn't to impress or convince the trolls, it's to make the target of hate feel better about themselves. You can do nothing to convince a hate brigrade.
Final bonus point: Do not engage with someone if you do not think that you yourself could remain civil. That's just asking for trouble and a hazard to your mental health.
2: Always go for the ball, not the person
Let's say that you're debating a nazi. I know, extreme example, but it'll underline the point. What do you get if you go after the person? A sense of carthasis? Yeap. And that's literally it. You will not convince them, they will not convince you, you're just shouting at one another at this point. Which, you know, if you're in the mood to hate on someone who is that extreme, I guess go for it, but it's not a debate at that point.
Now, you might ask yourself, "why go after the ball with a literal nazi?". Well, assuming you have no chance to convince this nazi and assuming that the debate is in public, perhaps your real goal isn't to convince the nazi. Perhaps your real goal is to convince the anonymous audience not to become nazis.
The best way to do this is not to hurl insults. Like it or not, it makes you look bad in the eyes of the yet-to-be-nazis. I, personally, want there to be less nazis. So if I engage a nazi in public, I'm going to be 100% polite, 100% civil and show that people who are not nazis can be pretty cool. I know this point is controversial, but if you truly want the world to be a better place, you have to consider what course of action will result in said better world.
Next comes the 'how' to go after the ball, rather than the person. Because it isn't as straightforward as it sounds. Imagine someone says something truly stupid. You call that idea stupid, then refute it. You went after the ball, right? Wrong! For who holds stupid ideas? Stupid people! You've indirectly insulted the intelligence of the person you're arguing with, and they
will pick up on that. What you have to do is to present your arguments in a way that somberly dismantles the other's assumptions or points.
Let's say someone has the following point: "All black people are stupid". I could call them ignorant, or I could present them with a counter-case of a single intelligent black person. The latter will refute the point in a very technical way, but still, if they're in the argument they have to change their case. "Most black people are stupid" is what you might be met with. Then you might ask "Do you have any sources for your claims?", questioning the assumptions. They link IQ statistics. You link to some studies showing IQ isn't equal to intelligence, mention how it's causally linked to poverty rather than race, so on and so forth.
It's not pleasant, necessarily, but by going this route you will have a lot greater chance at actually changing their minds. And if not their minds, the minds of the audience.
As I said earlier, there are points where going after the person rather than the ball can be productive. It just won't change anyone's minds.
Gut feeling tells me this is the point that most will refute. Not gonna lie, kind of nervous, lol.
3: Realize the importance of feelings; do not rely solely on logic
Humans aren't logical creatures. My own perspective of why this is the case is this: Feelings is what motivates us to be logical in the first place. Without feelings, desires, yearnings, there would be no drive for a satisfying logical argument in the first case. This primal motivation can hence not be ignored; it's the core of who we are, the very foundation of why we reason and also just happens to contain a lot of mental self-defense mechanisms that are entirely valid. I mean, you do not want to change your mind quickly, although we're taught that that's a virtue. It's not uncommon that an argument sounds really good until scrutinized further, after all.
A lot of the time, logic is the foundation of the argument. Feelings is then what you have to deal with to make the logic palpable. To make it resonate properly, and if not that, at the very least make your case sympathetic. The best time to go for the feelings is probably if the logic is entirely on your side or if the debate is about to near the end. The first to better plant the seed of change, the latter to make you and your side of the argument more human to the other person (so a form of self-humanization).
I personally try to establish a common human link between me and the person I'm arguing against. I try to recognize their drive to be a good person, I try to recognize their drive to make the world a better place, even if we disagree on how to do so. Let's take the black person argument from earlier. Let's assume that I make the most awesome arguments ever. I might go with the humanization of black people as my angle. "Black people are human. With kids, lives, passions. With a partner they want to protect and feed, a job that drains their energy. And on top of all that, they have to live with a whole lot of hate. Every day. A fear of cops not treating them right, a fear that they might not be able to get a promotion to get a better roof over their head, a fear that they'll have to pretend to be white to be able to sell their house. I want you to think about what you would feel if you were them. If you were being hated for existing. I mean, I think that that would suck. A lot. I wouldn't know how to deal with half of that myself, in all honesty."
It's not an exact science, because hey, it's feelings, but it can really,
really deliver a kicker along with a strong case. Now, you might get a lashback from the above. That's not too uncommon. That's because reading it might be very, very unpleasant, especially if parts of them realize they've been in the wrong the entire time.
Do not lash out at this point. You've already planted the seed of change, and you'll want to water it, not kill it.
Let's assume they say something heinous in response. I might just simply go "I'm going to be honest, I don't think we can get much further with our debate. So, this will be my final post as of now. I will just leave you with this: Please, take the words I've said into consideration. May you have a good day."
Again, not exact science, I'm not an expert at it myself, but yeah. If it gets hard, just keep asking yourself this question: "What do I personally gain from insulting this person right now and here?". The answer is usually catharsis. And again, that's likely literally it. Versus potentially having there be one less racist. I mean, think about that for a second.
4: Admit your mistakes publicly and without shame. Admit your shortcomings in knowledge; humble yourself
This one is pretty simple, but really, really powerful. It serves two important purposes. Firstly, you're not stuck defending a point you can no longer defend. It's not moving the goalpost to admit you were wrong and then make a different case with your renewed knowledge. It's moving the goalpost to not admit you were wrong at all and then make that different case. Secondly, a display of humility like that will make the other person feel more calm and perhaps even encourage them to mimic the behavior. People like to think themselves as being civil, so displaying highly civil behavior instigates more civil behavior in others... Although far from all the time, as you're probably aware. If you get the "You've been wrong about X,Y,Z, so therefor, you should probably reconsider everything", give up. That person is going after you from this point onwards. And, in case you're wondering, that's a logical fallacy. It's either the ad hominem fallacy (you are stupid, therefor, I won't consider anything you say) or the fallacy fallacy (you argued poorly, therefor the thing you're arguing for is objectively false, even if someone else could argue well for it). And once that race starts going, it's a downhill slope to nope town. There are some people who react to humility like predators spotting prey.
As for admitting your shortcomings in knowledge, it's a good way to take off steam and perhaps also let the other person that you're more willing to let yourself to be educated in some field. "I'm not a psychologist, so take this with a grain of salt, but-" is a good way to say "If you link some study that disproves me, I'm willing to reconsider my stance".
5: Analyze their assumptions; ask about them. Engage in the Socratic method whenever possible
This is both a good way to debate in terms of logic AND a good way to remain civil and avoid accidentally strawmanning someone. I can't stress how important this is!
Let's talk about the Socratic method first and foremost. I'm not going to go into the actual Socratic method, because I likely don't understand how that works, so I'm instead going to talk about my interpretation of the method. It is, quite simply, a method I use to avoid arguing something that hasn't been put down on the table in writing.
To put it simply, you should never argue against something the other person hasn't explicitly said! If you think someone means some thing you want to argue against, ask them first to pry it out. When you get that answer, THEN you can argue against it. It's very tempting to hear one argument and then assume the other person shares other viewpoints that are correlated to that argument. If someone is an anti-vaxxer, you may assume they're right wing. But they might be a left-wing antivaxxer. That's the crux of the point; be careful with your assumptions. You're risking arguing against a person that isn't present, which is definitely going to be insulting and frustrating to the other side of the argument.
Analyzing their assumptions is a very useful way to move an argument forward if you're stuck. A lot of the time when I'm stuck in an argument, it's either because I lack knowledge or I have unknowingly 'accepted' one of their assumptions without questioning it. Without fully understanding what that assumption is, even.
So, let's say I'm arguing someone who is antivaxx. They might say "the government is pushing this agenda". That's not clear enough for me to argue against. There isn't really an argument there at all, it's a statement. You should pull the argument out of this statement before proceeding, or you're going to end up having to make their case for them just to make a point, which is a great waste of time and effort. Ask something along the lines of "How are they doing that?" or "What makes you say that?/Why do you believe that?" or "Why are they doing that?". The answers to these questions are more likely to pull out their underlying ideas and beliefs, and you can then argue against them instead of 'the total possible subset of ideals that could make a person say what they said'. Of course, some people REALLY don't have a lot to add to the discussion. They will answer every question with another assumption. As frustrating as this is, it's not necessarily a sign of malice. They might just not be used to argue their case. This might be one of the first times they've been questioned in a productive manner. If they get rude, of course, perhaps skip on that debate for a more productive one.
You might be wondering why this is a point in regards to how to change minds; well, that's because you can't change a mind by arguing something they don't believe in in the first place.
Well, this point came out like a mess, but I hope it made some sense either way.
6: Analyze their points, answer only the points that are relevant, sometimes even less than that
This is a point that I break myself all of the time, but it is something I've found really, really helpful when I do apply it. When someone is put on the spot and faced with really great arguments, they can feel like they're put into a corner. Even if civil, this will cause them to 'pull out all stops' (in a civil manner), which usually results in a lot of tangents that actually don't have anything to do with the point at hand. I don't think people do this to be evil, as much as they do it as a bad habit or an unconscious self defense mechanism. Actually answering all the tangents, even if done in a perfectly civil way, is going to press them against the wall even harder and perhaps fluster them. That's not a good thing. If they're flustered, you want to be more concise so that your points takes less mental stamina to go through, and, you don't want to expand the topic to the tangents. As of such, analyze what someone is saying and only respond to the parts that you find relevant.
On the other hand, if there's one line of argumentation you've lost, admit your fault and agree to what they're saying in that point before then moving on with the points still contended. This will also make the argument more palpable for yourself.
Of course, you can run the risk of cherry-picking. If someone accuses you of that, best just to explain that you thought they were tangents, apologize and state that you didn't mean to misrepresent their points, then agree to argue the extra cases. It should be noted that this strategy that I'm putting out here of ignoring points is actually extremely powerful as a cherry picking tool, so please, do not maliciously ignore good points. And, perhaps, keep an eye out of which of your points have been ignored. Whether to raise them again or not is a bit of an artform; sometimes, they're ignored because the other person is overwhelmed. Sometimes, they're ignored out of malice. It's hard to know which is which. Push comes to shove, save the ignored points for later and bring them up again if cornered. "You're right on these points, but what about these points that I mentioned earlier?". It's a good way to keep malicious actors in check as well as civilly question honest actors without adding pressure when it's not needed.
7: Be willing to let them plant a seed in your mind, just as you expect them to let you plant a seed in theirs
I don't think you should expect yourself or others to change their mind in a given debate. The mind needs time to mull things over, make sure it hasn't been duped, consult with friends, etc. Instead, I think of the result of debates as seeds. Most times, I learn something completely tangential to the debate at hand; that's one kind of seed. Sometimes, I'm proven wrong, and that's a seed for me to consider and mull over in my head. Sometimes, I prove others wrong, and when that happens, I can only hope they mull that seed over in their minds. Sometimes, the argument ends in a well fought stalemate. In this case, there's something for both to mull over. Allow yourself to learn at your pace, do not feel anxious about changing your mind too quickly or too slowly, allow yourself to be biased even. It's your mind, your life, you need to feel comfortable with what you believe in in the long run. Sometimes, you have to accept that you believe something without any rhyme or reason to it. Perhaps that's something you should mull over, but do not feel rushed in this process. Rushing it leads to anxiety, anxiety leads to hostility, and hostility leads to less productive debates.
I'm not sure if any of that made sense, but yeah.
Bonus point: Ending debates
I like to 'end my debates', so to speak, especially if it's a longer one. If it's been productive, I end it in a nice way. If it's been unproductive, I try to end it in as short as possible yet still (hopefully) civil way. "I don't think we're going to get any further with this argument. This is going to be my last post on the matter. May you have a good day". This ending of debates gives me some breathing space and really help my mental health. I can definitely recommend it!
In general, be careful with your mental health. Debates can be REALLY draining.
So yeah, I hope this is helpful to someone! And there's probably more points to be made, but these were the ones I made, I guess.
Your support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)
