I grew up in the household of an English teacher, which some people claim gives me an unfair advantage when it comes to using the English language. (To which I respond: my father is also a musician, and most people who have heard me attempt to sing/play an instrument/keep a beat would emphatically agree that I do not have an advantage when it comes to music. My father is also a poet, and my poetry is, to put it kindly, execrable.)
One of the things I learned at a very early age was how to make and respond to an argument. Now, I am better at handling arguments in print, for a variety of reasons, although in a pinch I do ok in the spoken realm (I was, after all, in debate club). But I notice that a lot of people seem to have trouble making rational arguments.
Now, this bothers me in a purely aesthetic sense, but it also bothers me in the sense that when you make poor arguments on behalf of a cause or movement, you devalue your cause. Basically, every time a crappy argument is made, it makes people think less of the cause, and it’s that much harder to convince someone with a really solid, elegant argument. And as someone actively engaged in several causes, I wish that people who do not know how to make arguments would just be silent, because they make my work that much harder.
My father started training me from a young age:
Me: I don’t like this cake.
Father: Why?
Me: Because it is stupid.
Father: Why is it stupid?
Me: Because I don’t like it.
Father: Why don’t you like it?
Me: Because it is…too sweet?
Father: Are you saying there is too much sugar?
Me: Yes.
Father: Ok, is there anything else that makes the cake stupid?
Me: There is too much frosting.
…and so on.
It always amazes me when I hear people try to argue things like a six year old, by stubbornly repeating meaningless points and refusing to acknowledge or address the points of the other side. It’s like they think that burying their heads in the sand will ultimately win the argument. Or when their response to an argument is “the author is a cunt,” or “he’s just a stupid fucker,” or “someone of that race would have no idea of the issues involved,” or “you can’t be involved in feminism if you are a man,” or something equally nonsensical. Aside from the fact that these responses are just asinine, they are also wrong.
Here’s the thing. When you respond to an argument, you need to ignore the skin color/gender/ethnic origin/whatever of your target, and you need to focus on his or her arguments, because those are what matter. Now, sometimes physical/cultural characteristics are important. For example, when someone says “as a Jewish man, I feel uniquely qualified to speak on this issue,” that’s when you can jump in and say “can you outline your qualifications for me, please, because I am having trouble understanding them.”
As soon as you belittle someone, dismiss their arguments, or engage in namecalling, you have lost. It doesn’t matter how stupid that person’s argument is. You just lost because you failed to engage. And that means that you lost an opportunity to educate that person, to get him or her thinking about why the arguments being made are faulty, and you just made your cause lose out too, because that person goes away thinking “man, all of those pro-whatever people are just closed-minded jerks,” even if he or she is the real closed-minded jerk.
I’ve read/heard/seen a lot of things that make me want to writhe with fury and then urinate all over someone to express my contempt. But I am aware that this response, while personally satisfying, is ultimately non-productive. If I want to change beliefs, I need to approach someone with respect, and in a way which will make them actively think about my points, rather than just ignoring them because they are poorly presented.
People seem to forget that when they argue with someone who has views which are opposed to their own, that person needs to be convinced that his or her views are wrong. People don’t adopt stances out of whimsy, but because they genuinely believe in them. So you need to understand their views, and think about how they arrived at those beliefs, and then you need to carefully break those beliefs down in a way which that person will respond to.
Infighting seems to be the way of political movements, and I think that this is primarily because most people are incapable of making or responding to an argument in a coherent way. It’s all about being reactionary, with no actual sitting down and thinking about the issues.
The first thing when I do when I make or respond to an argument is I ponder the way that the other side approaches the situation. I think about what they say, how they say it, and why they think it. And I try to think of carefully planned responses to all of the defenses of the opposing argument. If I can, I work those responses right into my argument, so that my opponent doesn’t even get a chance to bring them up, because I have already shot them down.
And when people make points, I take them into account. I think about them. I engage them. I don’t ignore them. If someone is behaving in a stupid and bigoted way, I’m also not afraid to shut down the argument. To say “you clearly need to think about what you are saying, because this discussion is going nowhere until you do.” Shutting down an argument is not a loss, it’s a draw. And it leaves the possibility for reopening at some point in the future.
Unfortunately, because most people cannot argue effectively, I usually end up just being frustrated by any kind of attempt at engaging in dialogue, even in people I agree with. Making arguments is like a fine game of chess: there’s a way to play, and there’s a way not to play, and when you play with people who are not at your level, it is frustrating for both. (Incidentally, I am monumentally bad at chess, something which people seem to find quite amusing. To which I say: I challenge you to a backgammon match.)
Famous orators further their causes in memorable ways not only because they know how to turn a phrase, but because they know how to make an argument. How can you listen to a speech by Martin Luther King and not want to champion black civil rights? It’s just impossible, because he so neatly and so beautifully laid out his points. Why can’t people understand that reactionary namecalling and screaming accomplish absolutely nothing beyond alienating people?