12 ms·

Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively

213 points by liamrosen 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
aazaa 6y ago
> Your goal should be to get so good at steelmanning all types of arguments that you can pass the so-called Ideological Turing Test. To pass this test, you should be able to argue so persuasively and passionately for the other side that your text alone would pass for an argument proposed by someone who opposes your position. The essay could have focused on just this one technique. The worst arguments I've witnessed and been part of lacked any attempt by either side to Steelman the opposing side's position. To take it to the next level, try actively arguing for the side you think has the weaker points. It can be a lot of fun, not to mention educational.
abeppu 6y ago
> True collaboration requires that both parties open an investigation into why they may be wrong and consider changing their beliefs. > Debates about personal identity, like race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, can easily become inflammatory. When people feel that something so close to them is in question, they often lose sight of reason and argue instead from an emotional perspective. I think this document does a good job describing ways that people who want to can have a fact-based, clarifying discussion. But in cases where I and my interlocutor both have the curiosity, openness of mind and desire to come to a better understanding ... I don't think we need this document to have a productive debate, and it might not even feel like a debate, but rather a conversation. People have vitriolic debates because they feel threatened, marginalized, attacked -- and then their goal is to defend themselves. We have ugly fights because we don't want a richer understanding in that moment. And for issues in which no one feels at risk, I think people tend to have either useful conversations, or none at all due to lack of interest. If a colleague and I, neither of whom have put a lot of work into any specific approach to building compilers for functional languages enter into a conversation about the relative merits of compiling with continuations versus administrative normal form, either we can have a good nerdy time, or one of us leaves bored. If I, a renter in a rent-controlled apartment, and a family member who is a landlord have a conversation about rent control, property taxes, the mortgage interest deduction, and the policies which have benefitted each of us, we can both feel attacked and defensive even if neither actively wishes the other ill, even though both of those groupings are potentially temporary states which apply to us. The goal becomes not just to better understand, but to walk away feeling ok about your life. Am I a parasite for paying below market rate? Is he a villain for being subsidized by his less wealthy tenants? Once the stakes involve how you live your life, or how you view yourself, it's hard to keep wanting it to be a collaborative and open-minded exploration.
- lsiebert 6y ago
  "Once the stakes involve how you live your life, or how you view yourself, it's hard to keep wanting it to be a collaborative and open-minded exploration." On the flip side this is why, for example, Neo-Nazis can say things that are absolutely vile so calmly; It's not about their lives. In which case the expectation that emotion won't be brought in by the other party becomes tone policing.
danieltillett 6y ago
1. Get off Twitter... 2. See step 1.
hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
I'll make these arguments: 1. I don't really think any of the tips and strategies in this article are helpful unless both (or all) parties go in to it with this same mindset. Which means that, for example, I believe it is simply impossible to have these kind of "constructive arguments" on, say, Twitter, for example. One of the things I like most about HN is the guidelines are clear about the goals of the forums, and while of course they are not always followed (I've certainly not always followed them), they are very helpful to help recenter debates, and I think there are a lot of helpful commenters that try to get things back on track if they go off the rails (thank you, dang). 2. > When people feel that something so close to them is in question, they often lose sight of reason and argue instead from an emotional perspective. This may sound condescending, and it's really not meant to be as I also used to believe this, but I have come to the realization over the years that this mindset is woefully naive and immature. As someone who identifies as pretty "Spock-ian" in nature, it took me a long time (and years of therapy) to realize that everyone argues from an emotional perspective. It's what it means to be human. The entire purpose of emotions is that they are they only place where human motivation comes from. Trying to separate "logic" vs. "emotion" when dealing with humans is a fools' game in my opinion.
- aklemm 6y ago
  You have learned a lot.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  > everyone argues from an emotional perspective You kind of have to. If you were not emotionally invested in some way, you wouldn’t be arguing.
  - phobosanomaly 6y ago
    I commonly argue positions I don't necessarily agree with. Often these are ideas that I don't agree with, but I can't articulate exactly why I disagree. When I argue it, I can get others to argue against the idea, and so I can discover points that I may not have been able to put to words. It's essentially idea farming.
mlthoughts2018 6y ago
From the pyramid diagram I feel like the destructive argument tactics of “isolated demands for rigor” and “disputing definitions” sums up the vast majority of arguments I see around Hacker News. One step up from social shaming and gotchas that you see on many other social message boards, but not much better in all honesty. I think that’s probably OK for the most part though. It’s easy enough to ignore bad faith demands for evidence or “citation needed” commentary. Disputing definitions can be hard to break free from, but both of these failure modes are less likely to lead to toxic behavior or social shaming like “did you even read the article?” I think it’s way too much to expect message forum discussions will ever consist of good faith survey of evidence. Even if you have pure motives, it’s just not going to happen. You have really little time, you’re going to rattle off comments that come from your deep seated pre-baked opinions and areas where you believe you already completed a good faith survey of the evidence and already are bringing the most well-rounded opinion to the table. You have exactly enough time to unload it and then go take care of your kids or go to the gym or something.
da39a3ee 6y ago
> "An argument should be a collaboration between two people to find the truth." This makes me sad because I agree. And yet, in the USA, your right-wing uncle probably isn't that interested in the truth. And the new generation of identity-politics liberals are the generation who have grown up taught in an academic world infested with post-modernism; they are also less interested in truth, but to their credit, very interested in improving the world. One would hope the two would coincide, but honestly, it's not looking like it's going to work out that way.
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  I'm a leftie, but to be honest I have a left-wing and a right-wing uncle and they're both completely disinterested in the truth. One thinks Trump is god, and the other feels the same way about Noam Chomsky. One thinks Hillary eats babies, and the other thinks the CIA did 9/11. Meanwhile, the landscaping guy at work seems to have a pretty balanced take on things and he doesn't vote because he's not a citizen. He's one of the few people I can talk politics with over a cup of coffee and not want to pull my hair out. I think it would benefit us all to be able to take a disinterested look at this whole deal.
  - 3131s 6y ago
    > the other thinks the CIA did 9/11 You're right that it's not true, or at least that memo about a month prior makes a pretty persuasive case for them. Currently it's only clear that a few prominent people in the executive branch of the US government had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks and then later covered up the participation of high level Saudi organizers like Prince Bandar.
    - phobosanomaly 6y ago
      Without naming it, I'm pointing at the Loose Change documentary. I found it to be a not-uncommon conspiracy theory among the left in the early Bush years that the CIA had wired the Towers to blow fight-club style, and that documentary seemed to have a lot to do with it. If you want to step back and start talking about the CIA's role in Afghanistan in the eighties and nineties, as well as the US's covering for the Saudis, and the engineering of the Iraq war, I have an extensive rant prepared that I've been inflicting on my poor friends for years.
conanbatt 6y ago
"A debate as a collaboration to find the truth" Any clash of ideas could have any number of purposes, and of all the garden variety reasons to engage in one, this must be one of the lesser ones. Anecdotally I would rank the commonality of reasons to debate as: 1- Getting something out of it 2- Sharpening your teeth to achieve #1 later 3- Escalating a situation 4- For the kicks of it. (some personalities just love it) To find out the truth you have much better options than getting into conversation with an adversarial position.
Barrin92 6y ago
>"Separate Your Arguments From Your Emotions" >"This may sound callous, but if you've tried every strategy in this guide and your debate partner continues to operate at the bottom of the pyramid (for example, continuing to spout inflammatory ad hominem attacks), sometimes the best way to empathize with them is to pretend they have an undiagnosed mental illness." The article reads like you took every smartass redditor on the planet and condensed them down into an article. Why can I not express emotions in an argument, or why do I need to be 'rational', or why can I not be subjective? I don't mean this in an offensive way but why is everyone who argues supposed to pretend they're autistic, because that's honestly how this piece comes across.
- jhardy54 6y ago
  Do you think that people with autism don't have emotions? I'm trying to understand your comment but I'm having a hard time coming up with a generous interpretation.
  - DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
    My son has mild Asperger syndrome. He has emotions, but I've never seen anyone better at keeping a debate grounded in reason. To an emotional person, he could seem vexingly detached and flat. To my way of thinking, he's just masterful at keeping the discussion on track.
    - DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
      Just to clarify, here's a little more detail about what he's like during a friendly debate (usually with family members): - He doesn't lose track of the underlying logic, despite any emotionalism that the other party might be exhibiting. - He doesn't get flustered nearly as quickly as most of his opponents. - He has more endurance for the debate than most of his opponents do. Usually he's willing to keep on banging away at the argument long after his opponent has lost the will to debate. (No idea if this is a common trait for people with Asperger syndrome, or just something unique to him as an individual.) Also, I think there are two versions of "flat" speech in this context: (1) Simply not getting worked up to the same extent as the other person in the debate, like I describe above. I imagine this is what the ancestor comment was referring to. (2) Speaking with abnormally small variations in tone, volume, and cadence. I.e., what some people refer to "robotic" speech. I think some people associate this with Asperger syndrome. Interestingly, although my son is shows more telltale Asperger signs than I do, I'm more prone to "flat" speech. Especially when I'm tired, and doubly so if I'm on Adderall.
esfandia 6y ago
"Arguments are not soldiers" is so very well put. Unfortunately if you don't choose a camp you often end up in the cross-fire.
ochronus 6y ago
Well put! I wish this was part of education, honestly - we usually grow up believing arguments are to be won. I’ve also written about ways our arguments go wrong: https://ochronus.online/how-to-stop-winning-arguments/ https://ochronus.online/how-to-stop-winning-arguments/
JackFr 6y ago
“An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.” “No it isn’t”
- nevster 6y ago
  That's not an argument. That's just contradiction!
  - draugadrotten 6y ago
    For those young eggs not getting the reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&app=desktop https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=ohDB5gbtaEQ...
jaimex2 6y ago
I prefer the 'give them more rope' approach. Instead of retorting your point explore theirs and walk them through scenarios where it will be wrong. Arguing your point directly always just ends in a tennis match.
TrackerFF 6y ago
First you gotta find out if the other party is any interested in debating. Or at least in good faith. Too often, their mind is set in stone, and their agenda is to convince whoever is listening to you, that they're right - or that you're wrong. Point is - if they're not interested, there's not a single thing you can do about it. Waste of time and energy.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  Likewise, if you are going in already convinced you're right there's also no point.
- draugadrotten 6y ago
  Political debates are not about arguing with the other party. It's a show to influence the audience. Presidential debates are an obvious example. You don't believe your candidate thinks he can change the other's mind, do you. He thinks he can change the mind of someone in the audience. Or perhaps not even that, he just wants to boost morale by petting you, the passive follower of his, the right way. The same dynamic is in play in any twitter or online forum debate, including here. Well-written posts gets lots of upvotes, likes and "engagement" which illustrates my point nicely. It's not the other guy thinks, it's what the audience votes.
olivermarks 6y ago
If you are part of a serious debating society you will be expected to be able to form an argument for or against a concept, viewpoint or position regardless of your personal beliefs. This is arguing constructively without the entrenched partisan foxholes people dig for themselves which makes it so hard to have civilized discussions and conversation with many people in our current febrile social climate.
- endominus 6y ago
  My understanding was that that was becoming more rare in collegiate debate societies these days. Have things changed since the below article was published? https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/traditional-college-debate-white-privilege/360746/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/tradit...
  - olivermarks 6y ago
    I think the steady erosion of free speech, with identity politics challenging the idea of 'debate' is perfectly illustrated by your posted article about the USA.
ghufran_syed 6y ago
I'm trying to build a community of people who want to argue constructively at conferacity.com - hope you'll take a look and get in touch with feedback on how we can improve, or even better, be willing to join and contribute on the site. I particularly hope you might be willing to help if you disagree with the existing writers on the site, that makes your views more valuable! You can reach me at ghufran@conferacity.com, thanks+++
- cycomanic 6y ago
  Just a heads up conferacity.com does not work (address not found) , I needed to go to discourse.conferacity.com, you should probably point the main domain to the discourse subdomain or create some sort of landing page.
  - ghufran_syed 6y ago
    thanks! (I should really come back to look for replies to my comments more often!)
cottsak 6y ago
Intersect with PG's old article? http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
- liamrosen 6y ago
  Absolutely. That article inspired the SlateStarCodex article https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/08/varieties-of-argumentative-experience https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/08/varieties-of-argumenta..., which in turn was one of the main inspirations for this guide.
dr_dshiv 6y ago
Part of the challenging is the difference between trying to persuade people and trying to resonate with them. For changing minds and creating change, resonating with people is probably more effective.
shannifin 6y ago
> The closer you can come to arguing in person, the better chance both partners have of empathizing with each other and seeing each other as human beings. I've actually found myself having deeper debates in emails than in person. Having a debate in writing gives both parties time to consider and organize their thoughts, and provides records that can be later referenced. Granted, it only works if both parties are actually interested in putting in such an effort, but I've had deeper and more meaningful debates this way.
flashyfaffe2 6y ago
Too bad not being able to reach the website because of "site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit." Though I do like read HN comments first and then the article
sowrabh 6y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20201019224929/http://liamrosen.com/arguments.html https://web.archive.org/web/20201019224929/http://liamrosen.... The original page looks to be down. Here's web archive link for the same.
cranium 6y ago
I would argue that the American people evolve in a less that ideal environment for constructive argumentation due to the biparty politics. It nearly seems by construction that if an issue is endorsed by a party, then the other must be against it. For the untrained partisan of party A, every partisans of party B disagrees on every issue by default. I can see why it becomes difficult to stay rational. Obviously, some people are willing to meet and discuss constructively, but that requires additional efforts to think outside this biparty mold.
nor0ck 6y ago
Bring the site back up. Been getting this error lately. > Bandwidth Limit Exceeded > The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.
- liamrosen 6y ago
  Should be back soon. Have a ticket in with my hosting.
  - robobob 6y ago
    Nice to see you here after enjoying and recommending the sticky :) Thanks
pelasaco 6y ago
Bandwidth Limit Exceeded The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later. :(
- _nalply 6y ago
  Meanwhile https://archive.is/JVnft https://archive.is/JVnft
mrfusion 6y ago
If you’re arguing you have already lost.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

213 points by liamrosen 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

> Your goal should be to get so good at steelmanning all types of arguments that you can pass the so-called Ideological Turing Test. To pass this test, you should be able to argue so persuasively and passionately for the other side that your text alone would pass for an argument proposed by someone who opposes your position. The essay could have focused on just this one technique. The worst arguments I've witnessed and been part of lacked any attempt by either side to Steelman the opposing side's position. To take it to the next level, try actively arguing for the side you think has the weaker points. It can be a lot of fun, not to mention educational.

abeppu 6y ago

> True collaboration requires that both parties open an investigation into why they may be wrong and consider changing their beliefs. > Debates about personal identity, like race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, can easily become inflammatory. When people feel that something so close to them is in question, they often lose sight of reason and argue instead from an emotional perspective. I think this document does a good job describing ways that people who want to can have a fact-based, clarifying discussion. But in cases where I and my interlocutor both have the curiosity, openness of mind and desire to come to a better understanding ... I don't think we need this document to have a productive debate, and it might not even feel like a debate, but rather a conversation. People have vitriolic debates because they feel threatened, marginalized, attacked -- and then their goal is to defend themselves. We have ugly fights because we don't want a richer understanding in that moment. And for issues in which no one feels at risk, I think people tend to have either useful conversations, or none at all due to lack of interest. If a colleague and I, neither of whom have put a lot of work into any specific approach to building compilers for functional languages enter into a conversation about the relative merits of compiling with continuations versus administrative normal form, either we can have a good nerdy time, or one of us leaves bored. If I, a renter in a rent-controlled apartment, and a family member who is a landlord have a conversation about rent control, property taxes, the mortgage interest deduction, and the policies which have benefitted each of us, we can both feel attacked and defensive even if neither actively wishes the other ill, even though both of those groupings are potentially temporary states which apply to us. The goal becomes not just to better understand, but to walk away feeling ok about your life. Am I a parasite for paying below market rate? Is he a villain for being subsidized by his less wealthy tenants? Once the stakes involve how you live your life, or how you view yourself, it's hard to keep wanting it to be a collaborative and open-minded exploration.

lsiebert 6y ago
"Once the stakes involve how you live your life, or how you view yourself, it's hard to keep wanting it to be a collaborative and open-minded exploration." On the flip side this is why, for example, Neo-Nazis can say things that are absolutely vile so calmly; It's not about their lives. In which case the expectation that emotion won't be brought in by the other party becomes tone policing.

danieltillett 6y ago

1. Get off Twitter... 2. See step 1.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

I'll make these arguments: 1. I don't really think any of the tips and strategies in this article are helpful unless both (or all) parties go in to it with this same mindset. Which means that, for example, I believe it is simply impossible to have these kind of "constructive arguments" on, say, Twitter, for example. One of the things I like most about HN is the guidelines are clear about the goals of the forums, and while of course they are not always followed (I've certainly not always followed them), they are very helpful to help recenter debates, and I think there are a lot of helpful commenters that try to get things back on track if they go off the rails (thank you, dang). 2. > When people feel that something so close to them is in question, they often lose sight of reason and argue instead from an emotional perspective. This may sound condescending, and it's really not meant to be as I also used to believe this, but I have come to the realization over the years that this mindset is woefully naive and immature. As someone who identifies as pretty "Spock-ian" in nature, it took me a long time (and years of therapy) to realize that everyone argues from an emotional perspective. It's what it means to be human. The entire purpose of emotions is that they are they only place where human motivation comes from. Trying to separate "logic" vs. "emotion" when dealing with humans is a fools' game in my opinion.

aklemm 6y ago
You have learned a lot.
Aeolun 6y ago
> everyone argues from an emotional perspective You kind of have to. If you were not emotionally invested in some way, you wouldn’t be arguing.
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  I commonly argue positions I don't necessarily agree with. Often these are ideas that I don't agree with, but I can't articulate exactly why I disagree. When I argue it, I can get others to argue against the idea, and so I can discover points that I may not have been able to put to words. It's essentially idea farming.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago

From the pyramid diagram I feel like the destructive argument tactics of “isolated demands for rigor” and “disputing definitions” sums up the vast majority of arguments I see around Hacker News. One step up from social shaming and gotchas that you see on many other social message boards, but not much better in all honesty. I think that’s probably OK for the most part though. It’s easy enough to ignore bad faith demands for evidence or “citation needed” commentary. Disputing definitions can be hard to break free from, but both of these failure modes are less likely to lead to toxic behavior or social shaming like “did you even read the article?” I think it’s way too much to expect message forum discussions will ever consist of good faith survey of evidence. Even if you have pure motives, it’s just not going to happen. You have really little time, you’re going to rattle off comments that come from your deep seated pre-baked opinions and areas where you believe you already completed a good faith survey of the evidence and already are bringing the most well-rounded opinion to the table. You have exactly enough time to unload it and then go take care of your kids or go to the gym or something.

da39a3ee 6y ago

> "An argument should be a collaboration between two people to find the truth." This makes me sad because I agree. And yet, in the USA, your right-wing uncle probably isn't that interested in the truth. And the new generation of identity-politics liberals are the generation who have grown up taught in an academic world infested with post-modernism; they are also less interested in truth, but to their credit, very interested in improving the world. One would hope the two would coincide, but honestly, it's not looking like it's going to work out that way.

phobosanomaly 6y ago
I'm a leftie, but to be honest I have a left-wing and a right-wing uncle and they're both completely disinterested in the truth. One thinks Trump is god, and the other feels the same way about Noam Chomsky. One thinks Hillary eats babies, and the other thinks the CIA did 9/11. Meanwhile, the landscaping guy at work seems to have a pretty balanced take on things and he doesn't vote because he's not a citizen. He's one of the few people I can talk politics with over a cup of coffee and not want to pull my hair out. I think it would benefit us all to be able to take a disinterested look at this whole deal.
- 3131s 6y ago
  > the other thinks the CIA did 9/11 You're right that it's not true, or at least that memo about a month prior makes a pretty persuasive case for them. Currently it's only clear that a few prominent people in the executive branch of the US government had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks and then later covered up the participation of high level Saudi organizers like Prince Bandar.
  - phobosanomaly 6y ago
    Without naming it, I'm pointing at the Loose Change documentary. I found it to be a not-uncommon conspiracy theory among the left in the early Bush years that the CIA had wired the Towers to blow fight-club style, and that documentary seemed to have a lot to do with it. If you want to step back and start talking about the CIA's role in Afghanistan in the eighties and nineties, as well as the US's covering for the Saudis, and the engineering of the Iraq war, I have an extensive rant prepared that I've been inflicting on my poor friends for years.

conanbatt 6y ago

"A debate as a collaboration to find the truth" Any clash of ideas could have any number of purposes, and of all the garden variety reasons to engage in one, this must be one of the lesser ones. Anecdotally I would rank the commonality of reasons to debate as: 1- Getting something out of it 2- Sharpening your teeth to achieve #1 later 3- Escalating a situation 4- For the kicks of it. (some personalities just love it) To find out the truth you have much better options than getting into conversation with an adversarial position.

Barrin92 6y ago

>"Separate Your Arguments From Your Emotions" >"This may sound callous, but if you've tried every strategy in this guide and your debate partner continues to operate at the bottom of the pyramid (for example, continuing to spout inflammatory ad hominem attacks), sometimes the best way to empathize with them is to pretend they have an undiagnosed mental illness." The article reads like you took every smartass redditor on the planet and condensed them down into an article. Why can I not express emotions in an argument, or why do I need to be 'rational', or why can I not be subjective? I don't mean this in an offensive way but why is everyone who argues supposed to pretend they're autistic, because that's honestly how this piece comes across.

jhardy54 6y ago
Do you think that people with autism don't have emotions? I'm trying to understand your comment but I'm having a hard time coming up with a generous interpretation.
- DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
  My son has mild Asperger syndrome. He has emotions, but I've never seen anyone better at keeping a debate grounded in reason. To an emotional person, he could seem vexingly detached and flat. To my way of thinking, he's just masterful at keeping the discussion on track.
  - DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
    Just to clarify, here's a little more detail about what he's like during a friendly debate (usually with family members): - He doesn't lose track of the underlying logic, despite any emotionalism that the other party might be exhibiting. - He doesn't get flustered nearly as quickly as most of his opponents. - He has more endurance for the debate than most of his opponents do. Usually he's willing to keep on banging away at the argument long after his opponent has lost the will to debate. (No idea if this is a common trait for people with Asperger syndrome, or just something unique to him as an individual.) Also, I think there are two versions of "flat" speech in this context: (1) Simply not getting worked up to the same extent as the other person in the debate, like I describe above. I imagine this is what the ancestor comment was referring to. (2) Speaking with abnormally small variations in tone, volume, and cadence. I.e., what some people refer to "robotic" speech. I think some people associate this with Asperger syndrome. Interestingly, although my son is shows more telltale Asperger signs than I do, I'm more prone to "flat" speech. Especially when I'm tired, and doubly so if I'm on Adderall.

esfandia 6y ago

"Arguments are not soldiers" is so very well put. Unfortunately if you don't choose a camp you often end up in the cross-fire.

ochronus 6y ago

Well put! I wish this was part of education, honestly - we usually grow up believing arguments are to be won. I’ve also written about ways our arguments go wrong: https://ochronus.online/how-to-stop-winning-arguments/ https://ochronus.online/how-to-stop-winning-arguments/

JackFr 6y ago

“An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.” “No it isn’t”

nevster 6y ago
That's not an argument. That's just contradiction!
- draugadrotten 6y ago
  For those young eggs not getting the reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&app=desktop https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=ohDB5gbtaEQ...

jaimex2 6y ago

I prefer the 'give them more rope' approach. Instead of retorting your point explore theirs and walk them through scenarios where it will be wrong. Arguing your point directly always just ends in a tennis match.

TrackerFF 6y ago

First you gotta find out if the other party is any interested in debating. Or at least in good faith. Too often, their mind is set in stone, and their agenda is to convince whoever is listening to you, that they're right - or that you're wrong. Point is - if they're not interested, there's not a single thing you can do about it. Waste of time and energy.

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
Likewise, if you are going in already convinced you're right there's also no point.
draugadrotten 6y ago
Political debates are not about arguing with the other party. It's a show to influence the audience. Presidential debates are an obvious example. You don't believe your candidate thinks he can change the other's mind, do you. He thinks he can change the mind of someone in the audience. Or perhaps not even that, he just wants to boost morale by petting you, the passive follower of his, the right way. The same dynamic is in play in any twitter or online forum debate, including here. Well-written posts gets lots of upvotes, likes and "engagement" which illustrates my point nicely. It's not the other guy thinks, it's what the audience votes.

olivermarks 6y ago

If you are part of a serious debating society you will be expected to be able to form an argument for or against a concept, viewpoint or position regardless of your personal beliefs. This is arguing constructively without the entrenched partisan foxholes people dig for themselves which makes it so hard to have civilized discussions and conversation with many people in our current febrile social climate.

endominus 6y ago
My understanding was that that was becoming more rare in collegiate debate societies these days. Have things changed since the below article was published? https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/traditional-college-debate-white-privilege/360746/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/tradit...
- olivermarks 6y ago
  I think the steady erosion of free speech, with identity politics challenging the idea of 'debate' is perfectly illustrated by your posted article about the USA.

ghufran_syed 6y ago

I'm trying to build a community of people who want to argue constructively at conferacity.com - hope you'll take a look and get in touch with feedback on how we can improve, or even better, be willing to join and contribute on the site. I particularly hope you might be willing to help if you disagree with the existing writers on the site, that makes your views more valuable! You can reach me at ghufran@conferacity.com, thanks+++

cycomanic 6y ago
Just a heads up conferacity.com does not work (address not found) , I needed to go to discourse.conferacity.com, you should probably point the main domain to the discourse subdomain or create some sort of landing page.
- ghufran_syed 6y ago
  thanks! (I should really come back to look for replies to my comments more often!)

cottsak 6y ago

Intersect with PG's old article? http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

liamrosen 6y ago
Absolutely. That article inspired the SlateStarCodex article https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/08/varieties-of-argumentative-experience https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/08/varieties-of-argumenta..., which in turn was one of the main inspirations for this guide.

dr_dshiv 6y ago

Part of the challenging is the difference between trying to persuade people and trying to resonate with them. For changing minds and creating change, resonating with people is probably more effective.

shannifin 6y ago

> The closer you can come to arguing in person, the better chance both partners have of empathizing with each other and seeing each other as human beings. I've actually found myself having deeper debates in emails than in person. Having a debate in writing gives both parties time to consider and organize their thoughts, and provides records that can be later referenced. Granted, it only works if both parties are actually interested in putting in such an effort, but I've had deeper and more meaningful debates this way.

flashyfaffe2 6y ago

Too bad not being able to reach the website because of "site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit." Though I do like read HN comments first and then the article

sowrabh 6y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20201019224929/http://liamrosen.com/arguments.html https://web.archive.org/web/20201019224929/http://liamrosen.... The original page looks to be down. Here's web archive link for the same.

cranium 6y ago

I would argue that the American people evolve in a less that ideal environment for constructive argumentation due to the biparty politics. It nearly seems by construction that if an issue is endorsed by a party, then the other must be against it. For the untrained partisan of party A, every partisans of party B disagrees on every issue by default. I can see why it becomes difficult to stay rational. Obviously, some people are willing to meet and discuss constructively, but that requires additional efforts to think outside this biparty mold.

nor0ck 6y ago

Bring the site back up. Been getting this error lately. > Bandwidth Limit Exceeded > The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.

liamrosen 6y ago
Should be back soon. Have a ticket in with my hosting.
- robobob 6y ago
  Nice to see you here after enjoying and recommending the sticky :) Thanks

pelasaco 6y ago

Bandwidth Limit Exceeded The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later. :(

_nalply 6y ago
Meanwhile https://archive.is/JVnft https://archive.is/JVnft

mrfusion 6y ago

If you’re arguing you have already lost.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]