3 ms·
I find the most enjoyable form of argument is to listen to what your opponent is saying. Instead of poking holes in bad word choices or minor factual inaccuraci
by scarmig 14y ago
I find the most enjoyable form of argument is to listen to what your opponent is saying. Instead of poking holes in bad word choices or minor factual inaccuracies, reconstruct in your head the person's argument to be as strong and clear-headed as possible. Then refute that argument, which is probably closer anyways to what the person was thinking than what they actually wrote.
Going all out against someone's point of view does have its uses, of course. But it's never good for genuine intellectual exploration (which is, honestly, often not our real goal in confronting someone).
- slurgfest 14y agoThere is really no point in this unless you are arguing with someone who is trying to be honest to begin with. In that situation you don't need so much artifice anyway.
- scarmig 14y agoWell, I'd say there's a continuum of honesty. And intellectual generosity tends to beget intellectual generosity in the other person--and, for thoughtful undecided onlookers, makes them more amendable toward considering your side. For instance, speaking from both sides of the experience, someone who is engaged but being sniping or nasty in a political debate might well see that you're giving their point an honest go of it and in response clean up their act. And even if they're lost beyond all hope, there's only a limited amount of fun to be had in poking holes in the small without really addressing their motivating concern.
- thebigshane 14y agonote: I'm not refuting your central point, I agree with it, but this line made me smile... there's only a limited amount of fun to be had in poking holes in the small without really addressing their motivating concern The internet and tv news would disagree with you that the fun is limited. It appears definitely unlimited.