Learn How To Argue

In argument, it's helpful to remember three key things:

1. Are those who are arguing trying to evidence that their position or claim is the correct/truthful one, or are they trying to win the argument and persuade the other party/onlookers; regardless of the truth, facts, etc?

To me, this is the most important thing to determine: The motive of the individuals arguing. 

Whether they sincerely believe their claims, or if they know they’re in the wrong, and are intentionally sticking to a narrative that protects their interests and maintains decorum/perception of onlookers. 

The reason this matters is because once you can identify where they’re coming from (are they trying to reveal a fact or truthful observation about something, or are they trying to persuade you/ an audience), you become better equipped to address their position, and can easily call out their motives or lack of awareness. 

At a high level, the difference between dialectical reasoning and rhetorical reasoning is that one aims to discover truth or come to a common understanding, the other aims to persuade the other party/onlookers, regardless of truth. 

Yes. There is overlap. 

One can be truthful and persuasive. One can be neither. 

One of the biggest logical fallacies human beings fall prey to is the “either-or” fallacy. The notion we must choose or BE just one thing, when presented with multiple options. Ie: “Do we spend more on our marketing budget or more on our infrastructure?”

It can be both, often it should be. 

Perhaps one should also spend money on critical thinking skills, as well. 

At this point, the astute logician obsessed with consistency will notice I use binaries often in conversation, including “either this, or that”. 

It's true. And while these frameworks aren't perfect, they do help initiate a conversation that, when paired with dialectical reasoning, should always help suss out exceptions and artifacts.

Onwards! 

2. What is the main focus or goal of the argument? 

Put another way, what is the premise? What are both parties claiming, and what is the central topic of the claims?

Too often, a post or observation an individual makes online or in real life is derailed into a variety of unrelated topics, or redirects to the person that’s making the observations character, prior behavior, etc.

Whether done intentionally (a la rhetorical tricks like red herrings, whataboutisms, redirects), or accidentally (we’re ALL prone to making mistakes in conversation, attacking a person instead of the topic), it is always important to keep an eye on the topic at hand, and address the points made that relate to said topic. 

Too often, an argument is commandeered by sophists who use these rhetorical trucks (like syncrisis), to completely reframe a conversation and prove points entirely unrelated to the original topic.

And while these individuals don’t win in the realm of truth, they DO win in the realm of persuading onlookers (and even sometimes the other party) that the argument was “won”, or that “this position is better”.

This matters because, while it’s one of the worst forms of determining truth, popular opinion does rule our world, both online, in business and in politics. 

It’s how we determine guilt, who’s “in”, even what gets seen on the internet. 

Sometimes, it doesn’t matter if you have the absolute truth about a topic. 

If it’s overwhelmed by countless counter-arguments that make semi-related points all pointing to their position being the more attractive one, there’s a good chance the shot callers and decision makers watching from the sidelines won’t be able to tell the difference, and will just go with what’s been repeated the most. 

Remember, “a lie repeated 1,000 times becomes the truth”. 

3. What are the methods of argument being used to argue each person's side? 

Beyond determining whether an individual is arguing in good faith or not, even the most well-intentioned person is liable to make mistakes in argument. 

Very few of us have been trained to know how to communicate well: most just from necessity.

Complicating this even further is the fact that a LOT more “self help” books exist out there teaching individuals how to manipulate others to get what they want, rather than knowing how to think and act correctly to get what they want.

Either way: Every human being, when engaging in an argument, tends to appeal to one of three aspects: Emotion, Character, Or Logic. 

All three appeals have legitimacy and usefulness, and all three also have their downsides. 

Logic is King, Emotions are Queen, and Character is fleeting. 

Before you ping me, remember that ideally, logic takes into account emotions and character, too.

For appeals to emotion, an individual is trying to get the other party or audience to feel something, usually in order to get them to do or not do something, or to maintain a specific opinion on the topic at hand. 

Appeals to emotion are useful, because they’re normally sharing a personal anecdote or experience that tugs at the heartstrings, or inspires anger or action. 

The problem with appeals to emotion, is that they can and are used to manipulate people into doing things or agreeing with things they wouldn’t otherwise agree with, or things that aren’t legally or morally right. 

Wrapped up in the emotional toil of an experience in argument, logic can take a back seat, and it’s tough for most to ever see the forest from the trees. 

While usually starting out sincerely enough, like, “my uncle died because a lack of access to X”, the conclusion is generally something like, “so we should do Y thing!”, with Y sometimes not being the ideal solution, or not solving the root cause of the issue. 

And when employed by skillful rhetoricians, these appeals to emotion can be used to get government to pass nonsensical laws, or enable things with unintended consequences and downstream problems that could have been avoided by choosing the right option initially. 

The main point here, is to identify whether the individual arguing has a vested interest in their claims, or if they are purely a consumer/consumer advocate. 

If they’re just telling grandpa's story to make sure his/their medicine stays accessible, that’s great. If they also sell the same medicine or benefit from it in some way, there’s a conflict of interest when it comes to the purity of one's claims. 

For appeals to character, individuals are usually trying to rely on their personality, their ability to look trustworthy, or their prior accomplishments/reputation to back up their claims or assert they’re right.  

The problem with appeals to character is multitudinous. 

Not only can “good people do bad things” (think about any famous person, like Dr Seuss. Great bookwriter, terrible person), but people can also change at any point in time. 

Their character is a result of doing things a specific way repeatedly and consistently over time, and at any point an individual can jump ship and choose new loyalties in their life, change their behaviors, viewpoints, etc. 

Taking it a step further, I’ve known plenty of idiots with PHD’s, and some of the smartest people I’ve hired didn’t have a high school diploma but blew my mind with their insight. 

Appeals to credentials, degrees, structures of power, etc, can only go so far, and unfortunately, these appeals are often used to legitimize untrue (or even bad) things. 

This speaks to one of my biggest observations: If your claims are truthful, it shouldn’t need a lot of vying for emotions or appealing to character to make it so. 

It should be able to stand on its own merit, and should be simple enough and logical enough for any common man to grasp. It shouldn’t need a bunch of namecalling, your friends dogpilling in, hiding behind your science, SOPs, etc. 

This last logical fallacy, the appeal to specialization, allows many to claim, “you just don’t understand how advanced our science is”, as a way to deflect questions and maintain perceptions. 

For those wondering: This is why I tend not to share my prior accomplishments or rely on my identity at all, when I seek to achieve things in the material world. 

I’d rather people make informed decisions based on pure logic alone, without being able to judge books by a cover, or be swayed by emotional appeals. 

Lastly: For appeals to logic, individuals in an argument are trying to use critical thinking skills and sound thought processes, premises and conclusions, in order to argue their case or defend their position. 

Ideally. 

The problem with language and logic, is there are so many ways to use it poorly. 

There are literally thousands of logical fallacies that exist today, all being used accidentally and intentionally to drive forth the missions of their respective advocates.

And I don’t recommend learning them all, either. 

Instead, I recommend just learning the fundamentals of logic and dialectical reasoning. 

Once you learn the fundamentals, you will not need to memorize anything. 

You’ll be able to identify and see the big picture immediately, and divine truth at will. 

You’ll be able to make sense of any field of study, and engage in all levels of analysis. 

You’ll be able to create your own reality, first from thought, and then into word, and then into a written plan: the formula to your own abilities as creator. 

Potentially, these things also require will and power. 

At the very least, you’ll be able to avoid getting hustled for your money, or bullied on the internet, or gaslit for providing an unpopular opinion. 

Lastly, remember to “never argue with an idiot, because onlookers may not be able to tell the difference”. 

I’m kidding!! Just pick and choose which battles you fight, and with who.

The world is won and lost in the world of arguments. Just try not to stoop to the level of namecalling, and other ad hominems. 

Godspeed!