Not to say I'm the 'master debater' but I've picked up a few techniques that I'd like to share that can help you get more out of a difference in opinion.
1
What are our actual positions?
What are our actual positions?
Arguments very often start when a person finds someone has a different opinion to theirs on a subject that matters to them. By this I mean, you don't argue about favourite colours because this doesn't matter to anyone, but arguments start up easy and often about politics because this subject means a lot to a lot of people. So arguments involve a personal interest in your position or opinion. Because of this they are usually more emotional than purely logical. This makes you defensive of your position and offensive against theirs. People paint their opinion as something like "obviously right to any thinking/moral person" and their opponents as an extreme foolishness. However, if you take the time and listen to what your colleague has to say, you may find that their argument has more subtleties than you originally gave them credit for and poses an actual logical threat to your own. In any case, it's essential to make sure you actually understand the other person's position/opinion.
Mike: I wish the conservatives would stop putting so much emphasis on immigration.
Susie: I guess, but I think it's an important topic.
Mike: What? What do you have against immigrants!?
This sort of dialogue is a common beginning to an argument and, unless rectified, will only lead to trouble.
This start-up is a bit better:
Mike: I'm really fed up with my computer. You know, the internet has caused nothing but trouble since its inception.
Susie: Why do you think that?
Mike: I dunno... they make people less sociable.
Susie: What evidence do you have for that?
This argument is still slightly antagonistic but Susie isn't presuming anything about Mike's position and is instead allowing him to elaborate.
Mike: I wish the conservatives would stop putting so much emphasis on immigration.
Susie: I guess, but I think it's an important topic.
Mike: What? What do you have against immigrants!?
This sort of dialogue is a common beginning to an argument and, unless rectified, will only lead to trouble.
This start-up is a bit better:
Mike: I'm really fed up with my computer. You know, the internet has caused nothing but trouble since its inception.
Susie: Why do you think that?
Mike: I dunno... they make people less sociable.
Susie: What evidence do you have for that?
This argument is still slightly antagonistic but Susie isn't presuming anything about Mike's position and is instead allowing him to elaborate.
2
Where do we actually disagree?
Where do we actually disagree?
After starting off disagreeable, people tend to not be able to stop themselves disagreeing, over sometimes the smallest things. Part of an effective argument is not just understanding each other's position, but actually looking carefully at where the two opinions actually depart, if at all. Very often people may not actually be disagreeing on anything significant, instead merely quibbling over definitions or numbers.
Mike: I don't really want anymore bread. It's empty carbs so it's not nutritious.
Susie: Huh? Carbohydrates are a form of nutrition.
Mike: No, it's not nutrition like calcium or vitamins are.
Carbohydrates may or may not be 'nutritious' for Mike having already eaten whatever food that day, but we can see here how various terms are banded about in a liberal way, turning this into an argument based on 'being right', rather than using strict definitions and checking them. If you get into this type of disagreement, try to simplify the problem down to equations, e.g.:
Mike: I don't really want anymore bread. It's empty carbs so it's not nutritious.
Susie: Huh? Carbohydrates are a form of nutrition.
Mike: No, it's not nutrition like calcium or vitamins are.
Carbohydrates may or may not be 'nutritious' for Mike having already eaten whatever food that day, but we can see here how various terms are banded about in a liberal way, turning this into an argument based on 'being right', rather than using strict definitions and checking them. If you get into this type of disagreement, try to simplify the problem down to equations, e.g.:
carbohydrate = a nutrient?
therefore
carbohydrate = or =/= 'nutritious'
therefore
carbohydrate = or =/= 'nutritious'
This form of thinking seems anal, picking hairs, but it's the source of so many arguments that it's worth the time thinking carefully about what you are both essentially saying in your sentences.
Another point to consider is, what type of thing are you disagreeing about? Is it a fact or just a value? It might also be a different inference, your opinion on what meaning to get out of facts.
Mike: World War Two ended in Europe in May, 1945.
Susie: Huh? No it didn't, it ended in August.
This is a factual disagreement that needs to be checked, not squabbled over.
Mike: I think Germany should be able to mourn its war dead equally as Britain or America can.
Susie: What? Are you a Nazi? That's obviously wrong.
This is a difference in value, not something you can google for the answer. This type of argument could be productive but is worth considering whether it is worth it as emotions are usually closely tied to values as they are not usually based on logic and evidence.
Mike: The Americans clearly had to drop the bomb because the Japanese government was training its citizens to resist an invasion to the death.
Susie: That's silly, no way could the starved Japanese citizens have made any kind of significant resistance.
This is a difference in inference of the same facts. It's somewhat similar to values in that its going beyond what you can easily, logically discuss, so you will have to avoid this or approach it tentatively.
~・~
Another point to consider is, what type of thing are you disagreeing about? Is it a fact or just a value? It might also be a different inference, your opinion on what meaning to get out of facts.
Mike: World War Two ended in Europe in May, 1945.
Susie: Huh? No it didn't, it ended in August.
This is a factual disagreement that needs to be checked, not squabbled over.
Mike: I think Germany should be able to mourn its war dead equally as Britain or America can.
Susie: What? Are you a Nazi? That's obviously wrong.
This is a difference in value, not something you can google for the answer. This type of argument could be productive but is worth considering whether it is worth it as emotions are usually closely tied to values as they are not usually based on logic and evidence.
Mike: The Americans clearly had to drop the bomb because the Japanese government was training its citizens to resist an invasion to the death.
Susie: That's silly, no way could the starved Japanese citizens have made any kind of significant resistance.
This is a difference in inference of the same facts. It's somewhat similar to values in that its going beyond what you can easily, logically discuss, so you will have to avoid this or approach it tentatively.
3
How solid is your own opinion?
How solid is your own opinion?
Usually people use an argument as an opportunity to attack other people's opinions. It's important to challenge each other, keep everyone on their critical-thinking toes, but it's more important to be ready to challenge and reassess your own beliefs. If someone disagrees with you and is prepares to argue about it, they may well have a good reason to find your reasoning faulty. Very rarely do we stumble upon reasons to independently challenge our own opinion, so when we find others to do it for us we should be grateful and lay it bare.
Mike: I finally found a shop that sells all-natural health foods.
Susie: Why are you interested in that? 'Natural' is just a marketing gimmick.
Mike: What? No it's not, it's good for you and good for the environment.
Here, Mike wasn't very happy to suddenly have his opinion challenged and fought back. However this could only be wise if you thought that everything you know is right, which clearly isn't true. Because of this you should always be open to having your view challenged, not just immediately defending it and considering any opposing view as silly.
Susie: Communism makes everyone equal in society.
Mike: Huh? I thought it tends to further segregate people of different incomes. Why could this be wrong?
You might start sounding like one of those naive students explaining a problem to you in a textbook, but this really is the only way to keep an open mind and make sure your view is kept in check.
Very often, even if you have a more accurate/educated opinion on a subject, your opinion may not have been reassessed recently and may start to drift. Even if you are confident in it, it is always good to reaffirm the details. At least 1 time out of 10 you will find that you have actually been giving a false belief a ride.
Mike: I know that scientists agree that evolution is a fact, but I've forgotten what evidence exactly proves this. I better check up on the basics before I confidently assert that my opinion is correct.
Monday Susie: Oh yes, I thought that there was good medical evidence that smoking was bad for your health, and it checks out according to the NHS website.
Tuesday Susie: No problem, it seems that divorce rates are on the rise in the Western world.
Wednesday Susie: Oh wait. Recycling isn't necessarily always good? That seemed like such an obvious thing to me. Good job I checked up on it.
Not to say that everytime you think of a topic that you just might be wrong about you have to go and read up on it, but be ready and willing to reassess any belief that you have that you haven't looked at the evidence for in a little while (which for most is almost everything).
Mike: I finally found a shop that sells all-natural health foods.
Susie: Why are you interested in that? 'Natural' is just a marketing gimmick.
Mike: What? No it's not, it's good for you and good for the environment.
Here, Mike wasn't very happy to suddenly have his opinion challenged and fought back. However this could only be wise if you thought that everything you know is right, which clearly isn't true. Because of this you should always be open to having your view challenged, not just immediately defending it and considering any opposing view as silly.
Susie: Communism makes everyone equal in society.
Mike: Huh? I thought it tends to further segregate people of different incomes. Why could this be wrong?
You might start sounding like one of those naive students explaining a problem to you in a textbook, but this really is the only way to keep an open mind and make sure your view is kept in check.
~・~
Very often, even if you have a more accurate/educated opinion on a subject, your opinion may not have been reassessed recently and may start to drift. Even if you are confident in it, it is always good to reaffirm the details. At least 1 time out of 10 you will find that you have actually been giving a false belief a ride.
Mike: I know that scientists agree that evolution is a fact, but I've forgotten what evidence exactly proves this. I better check up on the basics before I confidently assert that my opinion is correct.
Monday Susie: Oh yes, I thought that there was good medical evidence that smoking was bad for your health, and it checks out according to the NHS website.
Tuesday Susie: No problem, it seems that divorce rates are on the rise in the Western world.
Wednesday Susie: Oh wait. Recycling isn't necessarily always good? That seemed like such an obvious thing to me. Good job I checked up on it.
Not to say that everytime you think of a topic that you just might be wrong about you have to go and read up on it, but be ready and willing to reassess any belief that you have that you haven't looked at the evidence for in a little while (which for most is almost everything).
Part 2 Soon To Come!
