Five Simple Ways to Win Arguments
Use these five methods to champion your ideas and be more confident in discourse
Everybody has an opinion and the prevalence of social media makes it inevitable that you will be confronted with an endless array of self-proclaimed experts, debating fanatics, and just plain old contrarians. Even a family dinner table is a four-cornered ring with grandma facing off with your uncle about the latest Trump Tweet.
My experience as an attorney has taught me that an aggressive approach to argumentation is not always necessary, especially outside of the courtroom. Arguments are won by your mind more so than your mouth. In fact, through something as basic as paying attention to what another person is saying, you can dismantle their entire premise with little exertion.
1. Learn to listen
When I was taking my first deposition, the most important lesson that I learned was to listen to what the witness is telling me. Often, lawyers prepare a long list of questions that they stick to like a script. In their zeal to be exhaustive, they miss what the witness is telling them. This is not just a lesson for lawyers, but for anyone that chooses to enter the arena of discourse and argument.
The loudest opinion is usually the most ignorant. People that are self-aware enough to understand that they are rarely the smartest person in the room will be patient with their words. Instead of jumping right into the midst of the other person’s tirade and speaking over them, take the time to hear out what they want to say. If nothing else, letting the other person have their say will diffuse their temper.
The other person will tell you everything that you need to know to respond. By listening first, you can organize the content that was just thrown in your direction. What is their central argument? What are they relying on to support their conclusion? Are there any logical fallacies that the other person is employing?
Whether you are providing a written answer or a verbal one, imagine each of these questions as a bullet point and each point gets its own response. Once you have responded, the burden shifts back to the person making the original argument to accept or refute what you just said. The other person will rarely have a follow-up in less formal settings and will usually resort to restating their original premise with minimal exposition.
2. Ask more questions, do less work
In combat sports, a fighter must always be mindful of their stamina. The person that goes all-out from the start can find themselves losing the fight before they land a strike. A similar principle applies to debate. Why spend time crafting arguments when the other person can just demonstrate how inept their own position is?
I was recently having a conversation with someone about immigration policy in the United States. They asserted that we need stricter regulations and better vetting of immigrants. Instead of focusing on countering their points, I began to ask questions.
What policies are currently being implemented? He couldn’t answer. What policies would you propose? He said better background checks. What would you do differently with background checks than what is being done now? He couldn’t answer. Would these better background checks actually be effective? He couldn’t answer.
When using this Socratic method of arguing, it is astonishing to learn how little somebody actually knows about what they are talking about. When a person has a shallow understanding of a subject, they will use broader terms like “reform.” In fact, there are a lot of “words of art” that sound impressive, but actually have no force behind them. Take the time to explore the other person’s knowledge before you decide whether this conversation should be any longer than a few sentences.
3. Have the better source
The way that you build a better argument is by having a better source of information. When discussing topics that require an understanding of the substantive material, there are no shortcuts when it comes to knowledge. Topics like politics, law, and medicine demand at least a basic competency in the subject matter. Furthermore, each of these topics has its’ own authority that is relied on such as journals, laws, best practices, and treatises.
I often see people arguing about constitutional law without understanding the language, scope, and interpretation of the amendments. Why is a private business able to tell its employees to mind their language? Because the First Amendment only protects against government restrictions, not private ones. Why can’t we ban all guns? Because regulations that target fundamental rights cannot be overly broad and impermissibly restrictive.
You have to do your homework. To understand complicated subjects, it takes time to build at least a rudimentary understanding of the topic. The difficulty is that there are so many people and organizations that purport to do that work for you. News networks, opinion writers, and politically funded organizations will pepper you with “facts” and “figures” and tell you what to think. Moreover, you will be confronted with people that have absorbed all of this “fed” information and proclaim their expertise.
The way that you combat these hedge-hoppers is by inquiring as to where they get their information. Do not take them at their word, dig for a source. When they reveal that some blogger or some columnist taught them what to say, their podium will start to crumble when you cite to a higher authority.
4. Identify the fallacies
The refuge of a weak argument is a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies can be used as debate tricks that are meant to substitute evidence with misdirection. Generally, they are errors in reasoning that undermine the logical foundation of an argument. It is important to understand logical fallacies both for identifying them in opposing arguments as well as removing these inconsistencies from our own.
Whataboutism, also known as “Tu quoque”, is one of the most commonly employed logical fallacies. It is the idea of answering criticism with another criticism, rather than responding directly. It is so widely employed that it is one of the fundamental tactics of Russian diplomacy.
“Russia’s president is already a master of “whataboutism” — indeed, it is practically a national ideology. (Whenever visiting western heads of state complain of Russia’s alleged democratic failings, Putin points to their own record with the words: “What about …”)” — Luke Harding, The Guardian
Another commonly encountered fallacy is the “burden of proof” logical fallacy. It is the assumption that a fact is true because no evidence has been provided to the contrary. We are seeing this fallacy play out on a national scale as Trump is asserting that this election had fraudulent practices and demanding Democrats to disprove that assertion. This runs contrary to the generally accepted principle that anybody making an assertion has the burden of proving their assertion. You are never called upon to disprove a negative.
The best way to combat these subversions of logical reasoning is to practice spotting them in discussions. Some of these fallacies have “tells,” like with whataboutism, where you will see a complete failure to answer a question and you will be faced with criticism instead. Other fallacies are more subtle, so it is prudent to listen carefully and to ask questions to better understand the underlying logic of an assertion.
If you are faced with an argument that relies on a logical fallacy, do not fall into the trap of fighting the unsound assertion. Instead, identify the fallacy and demand an offer of proof. By attacking the logical premise of the other person’s argument, you are discrediting their assertion and forcing them to either abandon their position or look foolish.
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” — Christopher Hitchens
5. Do not let others speak for you
One of the most frustrating aspects of our digital society is that any statement that you publish will exist forever. Over time, that statement can get cut up and selectively quoted, losing context and being used to completely misconstrue your initial premise. As much as this happens in written form, this is something that is encountered in the midst of a debate as well. Just listen for the key phrase, “What you’re saying is…”
As soon as you hear those words, your ears should be on high alert. The words that follow should be very heavily scrutinized. Imagine for a moment that you are playing “spot the difference” in real-time. If the words that you hear are not your own, do not agree with them. Even by being complacent and pushing forward, you are inadvertently acknowledging their summation of your premise rather than being your own advocate.
The most prominent example of this is the Cathy Newman interview with Jordan Peterson. Ignoring the substantive matter of the video, pay attention to how Cathy is constantly using the phrase, “So, what you’re saying is…” Oftentimes, when she employs this tactic, she is completely changing the substance of his answer, even though her restatement sounds similar.
This tactic is especially nefarious because it lulls the other person into a false sense that they are being listened to and even agreed with. This makes it uncomfortable to be disagreeable. In his interview, Jordan Peterson demonstrates the ideal response to this situation. If somebody tries to summarize your argument for you and you are not comfortable with the wording, speak up. Be direct. “No, what I am saying is x, y, and z.”
The best way to sharpen your debate skills is to hold yourself to a higher standard. By bettering your understanding of a subject and focusing on presenting logically sound arguments, it will be easier to identify an inferior product when confronted with it. Be patient, think through the conversation, and you will find a quality debater within.
