[META] Beginner's Guide to Arguing Constructively (liamrosen.com)

submitted 7 months ago by Candelestine@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Cross-posting this from the Science Communication community over on mander.

It's not directly politics, of course, but anyone political will probably immediately recognize its value, and even necessity.

Love how concisely he put everything down though, this is a quick read.

top 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

Of course... your debate partner is not an agent of evil

This is just not always true in political debates, there are some straight up evil people out there.

The strategies articulated here are great ones for engaging in a debate if your goal is simply to learn more as an individual (a worthy and important thing we should all do sometimes), but they're not necessarily the right approach to enacting political change and bettering society as a whole.

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 7 points 7 months ago

This should be re-titled, "how to argue when both people are coming at it in good faith."

For trolls:

Leave one clarifying statement and then almost always leave the conversation and move on. This is for later people to see the other side. They combat this by burying your statement and/or answering someone else to light them on fire. They are also getting really good at not being as obvious a troll as they used to be.
Don't comment at all if someone did the clarifying statement or it's incredibly obvious it's a troll.

That's all we've got that I know of.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

This should be re-titled, "how to argue when both people are coming at it in good faith."

Precisely.

I also like to jump on those clarifying statements when I see them with supporting information/links and to just try to get a conversation going with the clarifier that buries the troll's comments down thread.

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago

Well that's a great idea I hadn't though of, I will do that from now on as well.

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I don't think any singular approach will achieve universal results, and this one is no exception. That is fair. I would counter though, by saying the vast majority of people are not agents of any kind of evil, on purpose at least, and are simply misled.

This method can be effective in those situations.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

I would counter though, by saying the vast majority of people are not agents of any kind of evil, on purpose at least, and are simply misled.

Yeah, I definitely think this is right, and for the vast majority of people/conversations this is all great advice and the mindset you should start a discussion with. But if/when the other person shows they're not going to be reasoned with, it's time to stop talking and either start looking for enough allies that you no longer need the unreasonable person's votes/support or looking for ways to make the unreasonable person's life difficult to the point where they want to compromise with you to make whatever you're doing stop (I'm not saying to break any laws, I'm thinking litigation, investigations, leaking information to journalists, organizing press conferences and protests etc., things like that).

this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023

20 points (85.7% liked)

politics

18129 readers

3632 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News