The Argument Thread

[irenicObserver]

I want to ask the Playground how they feel about arguing. What methods do you use to argue? How should one not argue their point? How should you feel after arguing? This thread is for all the times I've had an argument and left feeling worse, confused and simply exhausted. I want to make it so that people don't get hung up on details and focus on making their point and solving the problem.

[Grinner]

In my experience, there's a couple of things you need keep in mind:

When making an argument, don't try to verbally browbeat your opponent. That's just going to lead into a shouting match. Instead, try to find the similarities between the opposing viewpoints and turn that to your advantage. Remember, you're not looking to argue for the sake of the act. You're looking to bring resolution to a situation.

Another thing to consider is courtesy. Always be polite, and expect the same from others. If they will not, then find a time when they'll be a little more reasonable and pursue the subject then.

Finally, Western societies generally expect all people to have certain natural rights. If you feel it is necessary, ask your opponent to respect them. If in a public location, they probably will or risk looking like an ass.

Naturally, this advice doesn't apply in all situations, but it can be a good start.

Edit: A few more points:

Always keep a few follow-up points running in the back of your mind. A swiftly delivered rebuttal will serve well in preventing most pettifoggery.

Do keep a deft command of the language in use. Embellishing a statement with a few choice words can only strengthen your position.

Finally, never approach a situation from a position of weakness. That is unless you're trying play on emotions, and that's just cold.

For what it's worth, I would recommend watching the movie The Great Debaters.

Edit Edit: Thank You for Smoking is also a good one.

[Ceric]

I argue a lot, but besides the normal tips and tricks I find two things to be vitally important: always keep track of what the argument is, and know when to quit.

(I'm writing this addressed to "you" but in a general sense, not you specifically :smallsmile:)

For the first one, I've had or seen too many instances of getting carried away from the main argument by tangents and details. You end up upset at each others' nitpicking while not actually making any progress on whatever you meant to be arguing in the first place. (This may be personal experience. One of the people I argue with hates nitpicking, so I've learned to avoid it if at all possible. It's usually not integral to my argument anyways, so I can lose that point and focus on what I mean to say.)

In the worse cases, you and your opponent are both making your arguments but are talking past each other. Or your arguments aren't arguing the same points. Or your arguments actually agree with each other but both of you are being too aggressive to realize. That's when you need to take a step back and usually when you should realize there's no argument and both of you should just stop talking.

Then there's times when both you and your opponent feel very strongly about entirely irreconcilable beliefs. In that situation, it's basically impossible to ever convince your opponent of your stance, so don't expect to. The best you're likely to get is "let's agree to disagree". If you're lucky and the other person is reasonable, you might manage "I don't agree but I see where you're coming from". (This isn't a straight-up failure; at least you've mentioned the idea to your opponent, so by the next time it's brought up again they'll have had exposure to the idea and also some time to think about and absorb it. Some people just argue on reaction and do change their minds afterwards.) Not such a workable solution when you actually have to convince a person of something, but good for internet arguments and the like.

Oh, and don't use any logical fallacies, please.

[Objection]

Oh, and don't use any logical fallacies, please.

Here (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/) is a good list of logical fallacies. Click each one to find out what it means.

And as Ceric says, don't use them.

[Cobra_Ikari]

I suppose it all depends on why you argue. I often argue from points of view I don't truly hold for the sake of providing an opposing opinion when I want someone to clarify and explain what and why they believe something (which I'm told is a horribly annoying trait, but how else am I supposed to get to know you? :smalltongue:). Other times, I argue so that I can get across to someone else what my beliefs on a subject are and how my particular trains of thought or logic work.

...but I find the entire idea of arguing to be right to be somewhat ridiculous. It only ever seems to make people upset. =\

[AtlanteanTroll]

One should totally use fallacies ... If they can get away with it. :smalltongue:

[Grinner]

One should totally use fallacies ... If they can get away with it. :smalltongue:

The thing about fallacies is that they vary in utility. Some, like the strawman argument, are just glaring holes in logic. Others, like an appeal to fear, can be described as dirty tricks.

[AtlanteanTroll]

The thing about fallacies is that they vary in utility. Some, like the strawman argument, are just glaring holes in logic. Others, like an appeal to fear, can be described as dirty tricks.

Fear mongering isn't really all that bad. Depends, I suppose. I'm generally alright with anything to win the argument ... Aside from flat out lies. Honestly, I'm more of a Chewbacca Defense guy myself. :smallwink:

EDIT: Actually, no, that's not true. Ad hominem attack attacks are totally wrong. And reductio ad absurdum annoys the living daylights out of me.

[Moff Chumley]

I suppose it all depends on why you argue. I often argue from points of view I don't truly hold for the sake of providing an opposing opinion when I want someone to clarify and explain what and why they believe something (which I'm told is a horribly annoying trait, but how else am I supposed to get to know you? :smalltongue:).

I do this too. The reason my friends are my friends is because they're capable of putting up with it. :smalltongue:

[Whiffet]

*glances at Perspectives on Argument on top of textbook pile*

Are you trying to make me study? :smalltongue:

[Emperor Ing]

IIRC, Aristotle divided the types of arguments into three categories: Logical, Emotional, and Ethical. When I argue, I typically work in this order. Starting logically, then tying it to people's emotions, then explain how and why X is just plain wrong.

More realistically though, i'm lucky if I ever get past Step 1, no matter how much credibility my opponent has lost.

[AtlanteanTroll]

... I'm pretty sure most people coming into this thread are going to know pathos, logos, and ethos. But maybe not.

[Objection]

IIRC, Aristotle divided the types of arguments into three categories: Logical, Emotional, and Ethical. When I argue, I typically work in this order. Starting logically, then tying it to people's emotions, then explain how and why X is just plain wrong.

More realistically though, i'm lucky if I ever get past Step 1, no matter how much credibility my opponent has lost.

Personally, I'm only interested in step 1 and sometimes step 3, because you can say pretty much anything in step 2, making emotional arguments rather trivial. Plus, I know just how wrong emotions can be sometimes.

[Katana_Geldar]

But...I came into this thread for an arguement!

[Whiffet]

But...I came into this thread for an arguement!

Well, if you want an argument you could always drop by the clinic. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y) :smallbiggrin:

[Ceric]

One should totally use fallacies ... If they can get away with it. :smalltongue:

Okay, well, if my opponent thinks fallacies are serious arguments then I'm going to be pissed, but if you know full well then it's just fun :smalltongue: Old propaganda posters are amazingly entertaining stuff :smallbiggrin:

[Katana_Geldar]

Well, if you want an argument you could always drop by the clinic. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y) :smallbiggrin:

No, I couldn't.

[Pie Guy]

The way to win every argument:
1) Take the opponent's side.
2) Compare people with your opinion to Hitler.
3) Victory by Godwin's Law.

[Feytalist]

I'm a bit of a coward. I dislike confrontation, both verbal and physical.

When I have to argue, it's usually not to bring someone around to my point of view, but to let them accept that there are other points of view that differ from theirs. Having differing opinions isn't a bad thing.

I also sometimes play the Devil's Advocate, for the same reasons.

[Grinner]

I'm a bit of a coward. I dislike confrontation, both verbal and physical.

When I have to argue, it's usually not to bring someone around to my point of view, but to let them accept that there are other points of view that differ from theirs. Having differing opinions isn't a bad thing.

I also sometimes play the Devil's Advocate, for the same reasons.

I don't see anything wrong with that....

It's only cowardice if you avoid what is necessary.

[Elemental]

I've got a feeling that this thread may start a few serious arguments about arguments...
Oh well, better than discussions about discussions.

[Kalmageddon]

Arguing is pointless most of the times and I try to never take it seriously, expecially when it's about gaming.
Probably because as a relfex I imagine whoever is arguing with me as having that Robot chicken nerd voice (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poAhbsBFjxs&feature=relmfu). :smalltongue:

[irenicObserver]

For me arguing was supposed to be solving the problem, the problem is that I'm either terrible at arguing or my brother was to stubborn to admit he was wrong. I just got sick of being wrong all the time, the immature child I was, and focused more on "winning". It made me feel even worse after an argument because I pretty much made a fool of myself. I thinks its always about which battles you pick and how prepared you are to really take on the task of trying to be civil while proving your point.