How to win every argument

I know the secret to winning every argument. And since this is a friendly crowd, I’ll share it with you. Without further ado, here it is:


Follow these two simple rules:


  1. Only take defensible positions.

  2. If you find you’ve taken a non-defensible position (and you will!), move to a defensible position.


See? Simple as pie!


But not always easy. It takes some practice.




First, of course, let's flesh out what constitutes a “defensible position.” My favorite way of describing it is something I borrowed from somebody, but I no longer remember where I got it: “Be the world’s greatest expert on everything you say.” That might at first sound rather limiting, but it’s not so bad. You are the world’s greatest expert on what you believe, perceive, favor, and feel. Some examples:


Non-defensible positions:

There is no God.

Racism is bad.

The dress is blue.

We should build more wind farms.


Defensible positions:

I don’t believe in any God.

I hate racism.

I see a blue dress.

I’m in favor of building more wind farms.


Another way of describing this approach would be “radical subjectivity.” This approach has saved my buns more than once. Rather than saying “XYZ isn’t true,” I’ve said, “I have seen no evidence supporting XYZ.” Only to have somebody provide me evidence. In which case I can express genuine appreciation for that person expanding my horizons. 


There’s a lot more to defensible positions, but I don’t want to turn this into tl;dr. So I’ll close by considering: What if both sides of an argument took this approach? What if everybody did so? My answer is, I think both sides would win. I think the world would be a better place. I think we could learn more from each other and demonize each other less. I call that win-win.


What do you think?


This esoteric exercise has been brought to you by Dan T.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That Uplifting Tweet You Just Shared? A Russian Troll Sent It

Image
Here’s what Russia’s 2020 disinformation operations look like, according to two experts on social media and propaganda. By   DARREN LINVILL   &   PATRICK WARREN Internet trolls don’t troll. Not the professionals at least. Professional trolls don’t go on social media to antagonize liberals or belittle conservatives. They are not narrow minded, drunk or angry. They don’t lack basic English language skills. They certainly aren’t  “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds,”  as the president once put it. Your stereotypical trolls do exist on social media, but the amateurs aren’t a threat to Western democracy. Professional trolls, on the other hand, are the tip of the spear in the new digital, ideological battleground. To combat the threat they pose, we must first understand them — and take them seriously. MORE: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russia-troll-2020-election-interference-twitter-916482/ Posted by Jamie B.
Read more

The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term

Image
The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term   (Photo: Photos: Getty Images) Americans will almost certainly go to bed on Nov. 3 without knowing who won the presidential election. Since millions of people will vote by mail, constraints on time and resources will slow ballot counting into potentially a weeks-long process. Voting patterns suggest it’s likely that President  Donald Trump  could end Election Day in the lead in certain key states, only to be overtaken by Democratic opponent  Joe Biden  when more votes are tallied.  This could create a nightmare scenario during the three months stretching from Election Day to the Jan. 20 inauguration: a battle on the state and congressional level over who is the legitimate winner. This could include Congress reconvening on Jan. 6, presided over by Vice President  Mike Pence , with no consensus over its potential role in choosing the next president. This is arguably the most likely of th
Read more

Philosophical Question #14 – Lifestyle Choices

Image
Here is an interesting question in my list of philosophical questions: 1.) Should governments have penalties for those who live unhealthy lifestyles? A list of unhealthy lifestyles would include things like smoking, drinking, illegal drugs, prostitution, and other “vice” type activities. I guess the “government penalties” would be referring to monetary punishments, withholding medical treatments (insurance companies would love that), possibly imposing/regulating very high (exorbitant) prices on things considered unhealthy in order to cut down on their use, and other possibilities. 2.) Or, would you say that living an unhealthy lifestyle, likely resulting in a LOT of eventual personal pain and suffering, should be punishment enough for unhealthy lifestyles? When people make bad choices in life, often in their youth where ignorance and immediate gratification takes them over,  3.) Should a society be obligated to help "fix" them, by way of tax money?   Is that part of
Read more