Woops, I managed to put this in HOMEWORK. I do apologize for the mistake, Comrades. sweatdrop
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.
3.Debate with someone who is learned in(Or at least thinks they are) and vehemently opposes your philosophy or views
Ah, this can be tricky. How do you counter someone who practically refuses to acknowledge the view you have and it's right to exist? How do you explain to someone your views without being crushed by their overwhelming hatred of your ideals?
Arguing with someone who is stubborn is often claimed to be a waste of time; this isn't true, but it is OFTEN true that you are going to reach a stalemate at best, and it's very hard to convince someone like this of their own obsolesence, without them either going through a self-searching event or being the victim of some sneaky tactics.
My advice is, as always, first to listen. Whatever your point, and however banal theirs, their might be something in their point that can be used to treat them like case number 2. Remember, if they don't think your view doesn't seem to conflict with theirs, they are less likely to conflict it.
If you can approach someone like this without hinting that your ideals are the polar opposite of theirs, they will be more likely to listen, especially if you can warm them up with some friendly small talk first. This can be harder the more intelligent they are, although this is not always the case.
Finally, if you cannot come up with an argument that will sway them to your cause, do not feel obligated to berate or become their enemy simply because of that fact. Being opposed to your ideals, and being opposed to you can be two seperate things, and should be. The more allies we can make, the better. Two examples follow; one that is doomed by preconception, and the other won by misconception.
3.a While on his way back home, Baxter is approached by a lynch mob. Fill in the reason they want to kill him yourself, but for now just be satiated that they desire his blood. The young man is terrified, as he should be, and doesn't know what to do, but he attempts to talk his way out of things. He listens to their tirades as he backs himself up, and tries to find a way to convince them that they don't want his blood. He makes impassioned rhetoric that he isn't the sort of person they should kill, but his pleas fall on deaf ears. Realizing that he's trapped, Baxter beats feet, and get's back home.
3.b The next time he goes to town, Baxter bumps into an old friend from high school. The two haven't talked in ages, but it's quite clear that from his dress and mannerism that his old friend has been doing quite well for himself. Putting two and two together, sly Baxter doesn't comment on this, but offers to take his friend to dinner.
The two discuss old endeavors, and finally the subject comes to communism. Baxter's friend rambles and raves about 'those socialists', not knowing that Baxter is one of them. Baxter listens patiently, and nods at the end. "I certainly see where you're coming from, my friend. It's a pity that there are so many of them. If only they were more educated, and the economy was better, I think there would be far fewer extremists." In between mouthfuls of pork, his friend nods.
"Yeah, damn straight! I bet you'd get far less commies if we didn't have to worry about things like the economy.. But that's what they want us to think, isn't it? It's their ideas we here when people are talking about 'socialized' welfare and the like..." Baxter nods. "That's what I'm saying. If we take away their main arguments, how can they continue to exist? We're certainly well off to do it.
By the end of the argument, Baxter hasn't changed his old friend at all, but he has snookered him into voting for an independent canidate he supports but twisting his opinions slightly, and by not revealing his own affliations. Although this may fall apart of it's own accord, it is a temporary victory, and Baxter leaves for home content, even more content that the lynch mob in passage 3.a was arrested some hours ago.
4. Debate with someone who knows of your ideals, and is aware of them, even receptive, but believes their own personal beliefs are the best possible option, and is nigh-unswayable.
Ugh... This is my least favorite type of debate, but less on that and more about what it actually entails. When you encounter someone who is receptive to your ideals, you may want to talk to them about it, or even try to convince them to take up your stances. This is fine, and most people will kindly acknowledge your efforts, even if they do not end up agreeing with you, and vice versa. A good example is when your friends attempt to convince you to see a movie that you might like. You might see it, you might not. You might enjoy it, you might not. But at least, you gave them and it the chance, correct?
These sort of people may seem receptive at first, but in the end are less likely to be receptive to your ideas then most simply because their own are so deeply entrenched in the roots of their subconsciouss. This is an aggravating position for the debater, as a rock-hard mind is nearly immune to penetration.
Your best bet's are not just to listen, which as you know, I always recommend, but to try finding a way in which their ideas can compliment your own. Getting someone like this to change their ideas can be traumatic and a waste of time, as I'm sure many of you have had the experience of finding out on your own.
Another good tip to have on hand is to be prepared to adopt a stalemate, smile, and nod. It's better to lose an arguement, and not lose a possible friend, or alienate someone to your beliefs, in my books, then to win an argument just for the sake of winning.
4.a Baxter is visiting another old friend, this time someone he's kept in touch with over the years. His friend is one of the rapidly vanishing American middle-class men that you may have heard tell of, and Baxter finds that his ideas generally are reflected onto his own.
Our young protaganist goes to his friends house, and is welcomed in with open arms by his old friend, Mr. Hillerman. Hillerman invites Baxter to sit down on a sofa in the living room, and the two of them begin to talk. Hillerman has decidedly market liberal beliefs, and they start to make Baxter slightly annoyed. For all his talk, Hillerman doesn't seem to have done much to help the average civillian at all, and he certainly doesn't give a damn about anyone lower in the economic spectrum.
Resisting the urge to get angry, Baxter instead asks if Hillerman would like to be better off on life, to which the answer is an emphatic yes. Baxter then starts talking about Communism, to which Hillerman gives enthusiastic smiles and nods. It certainly seems to Baxter as if he's getting somwhere. Then, at the end of his points, Hillerman sums up everything Baxter has said with: "That's nice, but it'll never work in real life," and leaves it at that. He then begins to talk about his new stock market plan, as if the discussion never happened. Confused, Baxter asks if they could continue talking about politics.
Hillerman offers a congenial smile; "Well, certainly we could, but why on earth would we want to? I mean, we've already covered everything, haven't we?" From this point Baxter could try any ideology he wants, but it is highly unlikely that anything will get into Hillermans mind. He so deeply believes in his own ideas and their perfection that he views alternate solutions as impossible and non-existent. Baxter realizes this, and cuts short his losses, determined not to lose another friend. He's disheartened, but later hears about Hillerman losing 10% of his life's earnings in a stock market scam.
Not intending to be political, he comes over to comfort his friend, when Hillerman admits he's been wrong, and this sudden collapse of the market, to enrich him, the legal system, to protect him, and society, to support him, has made him seen the error of his ways; now, he's willing to listen to, if not accept, Baxter's ideals, and it is only up to them where to go next.
Thoughts? Comments? Revisions? Go for it! Cheers!
Reply
