This is just the first of a little series of rambles I plan to spread out. It may be complete and utter bull dooky, but hopefully you will manage to extract a valuable lesson(Or laughter!) out of what I am about to describe. I don't personally follow these all the time, but I do try, and they are my informal golden rules, as it were.

On Debate; Ian's thoughts on persuasive speaking

I've found that, generally, there are four types of arguements: Those in which you are argueing with someone who generally knows your ideals and agrees with them, but you are arguing for either sport, fun, or because of ideological differences; those who are not educated in what you are debating about, and are just talking to attempt to appear educated, or because they have an opinion without understanding the matter(Although they may understand it mentally); those who understand and are VEHEMENTLY opposed to your philosophy; and those who understand your points, and are receptive to them, but already believe their chosen stance is the best possible option.

So, now that I've mentioned this little factoid, I will give possible arguements and arguementers, and my thoughts on each:

1. Debate with a friend or ideological comrade for sport, pleasure, fun, or ideological differences:

This is simultaneously the most simple and most complex form of debate. Because you both agree on so many things, and are likely to be friends or know about each other, and the points you mutually like, you will be prepared to what they have to say. Try not to be un-receptive, and most importantly, LISTEN before you say anything. You may have heard it a thousand times before, but your receptiveness will mean a lot to them.

Be kind and caring, and never get too impassioned. Although passion can be a strength, emotion and logic are not always mutually complimentive; and in a situation where you are with a friend, why get into a situation where feelings could be hurt and friendship could be lost over an issue you probably have similar views on?

Sieze something in their arguement that is similar to yours, but DO NOT twist it in anyway. Besides dishonesty being negative, they will pick up on it, and resent you for it. Instead, show that SINCE your views are similiar, they should consider your view. Tie that in to how you could make a compromise, or how your view would achieve the same goals as theirs. From their on, the convincing must be done by you, in your own words.

1. a: A sample argument: Two friends, Baxter and Lucille, are arguing about systems of representation. Both believe in democratic representation, but Baxter believes that the system should use representitives, while Lucille thinks that the people should use councils and workingmans committees. She listens patiently to Baxters main worry this would be unfair and unbiased, and assures him that her councils would function as group representitives, while at the same time getting things done in an efficient, timely, and honest manner. Baxter is convinced, and the two haven't damaged their friendship in the process.


2.Debate with someone who is unexperienced with the subject matter and unaquainted with all or most of the facts:

Another debate that seems decievingly simple at first, in this particular brand of argument, you must keep your attempts to 'educate' the target(Which will just seem rude and bellicose) down, and instead ltry to discern what whomever you are arguing with is making the point out to be. Without bringing in information that may confuse them, stick with what they know, and again LISTEN. Otherwise, you will not only come off as a pompous a**, but one who is not even really keeping the interests of the people at heart.

I've found that often, once you get past a barrier of 'ignorance', or rather, peoples percieved unwillingness to listen to facts, these sorts of people will be receptive, kind, and charitable to your thoughts. Respect their opinions, and they will respect yours.

2.a: Baxter, feeling sad that he lost his debate with Lucille, bumps into farmer Neven, his next door neighboor who also happens to be considered the town bumpkin and redneck. The farmer's face is as red as his namesake, and he demands to know about all this 'commu-nisam' business he's been hearing about. Baxter, instead of getting angry, replies that it depends, and asks the farmer to sit with him a spell. The two stop and chat about points they have in common; both hate their individual liberties being revoked, both hate the unequal division of wealth and the plight of the working man. The farmer takes a puff on his pipe, and nods, looking mollified. "Well, boy, I'll tell you; I didn't really think that this Communist s**t was patriotic, but I'm telling you, maybe I was wrong. We're thinkin' about the same things, we just have different ways of expressing it." Although the farmer hasn't immediately changed his opinion, he's interested, and Baxter has made a new friend.

These sort of debates are the ones I enjoy most, actually, and it's where I won a couple of converst for voting in 2004. But, I do digress. I'm being summoned away by family now, so I'll update later. Take care all, and I hope this has helped somewhat!