Happy Thanksgiving, readers!
Tomorrow is Turkey day and if the Northern State Parkway was any indication on Monday, stress is high. I’ve never seen so many accidents. Perhaps our minds aren’t where they should be because we are dreading that Uncle or Aunt coming to dinner and trying to start fights about Trump or Harris or whoever with everyone in the family who thinks the other way. Facing people who see the world differently than you do can be the source of great anxiety. But it’s not the people or the ideas that cause this. It is the lack of training in argumentation that causes us the most grief.
Argumentation is not a breakdown of communication or a failure to care. It is an essential discourse that is necessary for human interaction and even human thriving. We are meant and designed to argue with one another in order to sharpen and improve our thinking. But shouting at one another and attacking people personally isn’t going to help. Neither is bragging, gloating, or blaming someone for the destruction of the world. Instead, we have to think about argumentation as a way to get people to think and understand things differently. Luckily, argumentation works this way rather naturally if you approach it in an appropriate way. Sharing our ideas is sharing who we are, and that includes disagreement and argument. But we have to do it in a way that allows for the productive effects of argument to come to the forefront. Argumentation is not fighting and not related to hate. It is respect for another human mind at work, and it shows that respect by interrogating that mind’s moves. Much like analyzing a chess game or a football match for strategy, it gives us an appreciation for error that improves all thought going forward, optimally.
It is a good thing to argue and defend your point of view. But you definitely need to be able to explain yourself as well as have reasons and evidence for your beliefs. If you don’t have those things, you can still participate but you might have to ask more questions or listen more than you imagined you would. One of the most shocking things that can happen in argumentation is that the other side offers up an idea you haven’t heard or thought about yet. This is a good thing – it’s why we argue. We argue to improve our thinking, knowledge and understanding not of the truth or the facts, but about perception and other people.
Here are some suggestions on how to engage with others productively tomorrow.
How to initiate an argument, or participate in one
Argument is invitational and it’s a group project! People forget this, but argumentation is not the firing of the cannons, it’s the invitation to dance. It’s asking someone to help you carry things. It’s asking someone to open a door for you, reach something on a high shelf, or taste something that you are cooking.
I often refer to cooking when I’m discussing argument. The reason why is Socrates, according to Plato, dismissed the study of argumentation and rhetoric by comparing it to cooking. For Socrates, cooking makes things taste good that are unhealthy for us, so it’s dangerous. It’s also not an art! For Socrates, an art can only be something that has total benefit as its goal.
I would hate to go to a dinner party at Socrates’s house.
Cooking is something that brings the family together, brings us all into a room to do that one basic thing all humans have to do to survive: Eat. While we are doing one of our most basic survival tasks, albeit symbolic for many people this time of year (I know I don’t really need that much food, or these fancy types of food) it’s a celebration of what it means to be alive and human, thankful for being able to take a moment and sit down and eat together.
Argumentation is something similar. We should be thankful for the chance to “cook up” our ideas and “serve” them to others to see what they need to “taste better.” Like food, everyone prefers different levels and kinds of seasoning in their arguments.
If someone rejects your argument they are not rejecting you. They are saying “More garlic please!” And a good cook wouldn’t take that as a personal attack. Yet we do in argument!
Another thing to think about in argument is that it’s not about being right, it’s about making a connection with someone and sharing something together. Argument is more like a conversation than like warfare. People don’t see it this way because they forget that argument, at its heart, is an exchange. You can’t have an argument if the other person doesn’t offer anything – that’s just a lecture. And I can tell you that after teaching for over 20 years,, few people really enjoy a lecture. They would rather be participating in a conversation. If you want to have an argument you must have an exchange, and you want that exchange to be substantive – it can’t just be two or three lines. It has to take you both somewhere new.
Knowing something is true is not the ending point. This isn’t how you enter an argument. Knowing something is true should make you want to think about how to make it convincing to other people – that is if you really do care about the truth. Having the truth is not like having power or being dominant. It’s the first step in thinking about how to bring people over to something that is beneficial without question. A good thing to look into if you are interested in how difficult this can be is how doctors are taught to convince patients to change their habits and become healthier. They don’t tell the patients they are wrong or stupid; they explain to the patient what the facts are and what this can mean if they don’t address certain actions.
Another basic rule is that being right is very different from being convincing. If you think you are right, and you are comfortable with that belief, you aren’t really going to understand why you should work hard to believe it. If it took you some time to come around to it, you are in a better position to argue because you can tell the story as to how you came around to your belief. Saying something is obvious and “only an idiot” would think otherwise isn’t convincing to anyone – you just called your argument partner an idiot. Not helpful.
Instead, think about how to tell a story about your belief that starts with common concerns, grounds, or ideas that you both might share. The secret trick to winning an argument is to not speak before you have reminded yourself that the person you are speaking with has a human mind and human experiences just like you do. As you eat together, remember that you are both human and have similar capacities for thought and feeling. Then you can say something that will be convincing. This is the root of it, but not the total picture of course.
Finally, think about your goals in initiating an argument. Why do you want to argue? If it is something other than to improve the quality of thought and feeling with others, then you should probably stay quiet. It’s easy to cause a lot of harm expressing anything – even a phrase you think is innocent. In Buddhism they have the saying: “Mouth open; already a mistake.” Think about this before you start to invite others to argue with you about politics or anything for that matter.
If you have the goal of correcting others, think to yourself whether or not this is your role. Should you be the one to correct them? Are they doing great harm? Or is it more that you feel annoyed that they don’t think like you do? If you think about it, and you believe engaging in argument with this person will improve thought and feeling about things, then go for it!
How to get out of an argument
A lot of us fear being cornered by our political relatives and smothered in a bunch of discourse about the election. How do we handle this?
The best way is to decline. A lot of times people will see this as a “victory!” – oh too scared you are going to lose, huh? Nothing to say!
What I suggest is staying quiet or trying to change the conversation to something else. It might really bug you that they claim this as a “victory,” but a victory over what? What exactly has been won? You have offered nothing and they have offered nothing. Things are as they were when the conversation started. They didn’t gain anything; they are still convinced like they were when they initiated.
Also, if someone feels they are right about something, and they really do believe it, why challenge others to argue in such an aggressive way? To me, this communicates deep doubts. They need the exchange of aggression to convince themselves that they are correct.
Silence annoys people who want to have arguments, who demand to argue because it denies them of the pleasure of expressing their frustration and anger about – well who knows what! It’s too simple to think that their anger and frustration is about politics. It has to be deeper than that. But you are (probably) not a psychologist, so it’s best to just talk about something more fun and interesting and avoid the argument entirely.
You can always respond that you only argue with people when you think there’s a chance to learn something new, change minds, or think – and that you don’t think that the suggested topic and attitude is going to get you there.
Another thing to do to get out of arguments is to ask questions: I would love to know what good things you think Trump will do his first year, what will be best? Or, what do you think we are missing out on since Harris lost? This usually defuses the debate and allows them to talk but they will talk in terms that pretty quickly get exhausted since you aren’t pushing back, you are just asking for more information. Here’s some other starter questions:
What’s the most important issue to you?
How is Trump going to address that/fail at that?
What policy are you most scared of/looking forward to?
What challenges do you think will be toughest to take on?
Sometimes people don’t really want to argue, they just want someone to listen to them. As I have been told many times using this technique, “thank you for listening to my views.” It seems people don’t want to do it – they are afraid of hearing views they don’t like, or hate, or think are evil. But if you feel this way about those views, what harm is there in listening? Are you afraid you will change your mind?
Now on to some specific advice for some of you arguers out there.
Advice for the Trump People
Now is not the time to celebrate like you’ve won the big game. People who you want to argue with will find this inappropriate. Social convention, things like appropriateness and timeliness, are vital to successful argumentation. It’s not just important that you have the best information or good phrasing, it’s vital that you also have a sense of when it’s in good taste to bring up what you want to argue about.
If you just want to make your Democratic relatives feel bad, they probably already do. So there’s no reason to gloat – it’s not an argument and it doesn’t improve thinking, reasoning, or understanding.
But understanding is the bedrock of all good argumentation. You can’t agree with someone if you don’t understand what it is they are saying, what they believe, or how they connect multiple facts or phenomena. If you think you could increase understanding, that’s a good reason to invite an argument.
You should be prepared to defend Trump as a criminal. For many, a criminal is someone who doesn’t respect the law. How will you engage this argument? You can re-define the idea of a criminal – you could argue most businesspeople at his level are criminals, he just got caught – or you can take the approach that the laws he disrespected have no relevance to being President and enforcing constitutional principles.
Some will argue that Trump has no respect for the Constitution because of January 6th. You should be prepared for this argument. The evidence is pretty strong and convincing that he incited the violent mob to attack the capitol and didn’t want to call them off. This is a tough one.
With any tough argument the best thing to do is research. Have some notes on your phone and take a look at some sources you think are good interpretations of what happened that day.
But it’s best overall if you can avoid talking about Trump “the man.” One thing to consider is that Trump won the election in spite of all of these things against him as a person. You can always pivot such arguments to policy. This sounds like: “I understand you think Trump is a bad guy, but I like his plan for ________ .” This shifts the argument onto ground about what policies you voted for. You can ask: “I voted on policy as I’m sure you did, not personality.”
Now this only works if you did vote on policy! I hope you did!!
Be ready on Trump’s big plans for the tariff and the border – what is the evidence that these policies are going to solve major issues in the country? Find some experts who think that these things are going to work. For example, many financial analysts believe the tariff is a negotiating policy to get compliance from our neighbors on a particular model of border safety. That might be a good addition to the argument! Anything that gives another point of view other than the tired views we see on CNN is helpful.
Remember, the goal of having an argument is to get buy in to your perspective, not to be right. A victory isn’t rendering people into silence. That simply means they need time to think (a good sign for your argument). What true victory would be is hard to say. Perhaps it would be willingness to talk politics with you again in the future? Or saying to you that they have thought about what you said and have changed some of their articulation of their beliefs (but still hold the same beliefs)? Rarely, if ever is it that you face-crushed them. Reserve that for the football game chat. Argumentation never works this way and if you think you have done that in an argument, you most likely didn’t have an argument. That was a fight, and best avoided.
Advice for the Harris people
Kamala Harris ran an entire campaign based on the idea that Trump is a terrible person. This is the argument of ad hominem, or “at the person,” a strategy of discounting someone’s position or claim in an argument by pointing out that they are a mess, evil, or incompetent.
Many logicians believe that the ad hominem is a fallacy, which is an illegitimate way to argue. Instead of taking on the ideas you criticize the person offering the ideas. You dodge your responsibility in the argument to prove the idea or suggestion to be a bad one.
If you want to argue with Trump supporters, it’s a good idea to abandon this strategy. It didn’t work too well in the general election. Now you see pundits and journalists claiming that the reason the Democrats lost was because they went “too far left.” I think it’s more reasonable to think that they didn’t spend enough time on the policies and values that they believe and support.
If you want to have an argument with Trump supporters, it would be a great strategy to focus on values and policies that you think are better for the country and/or better supported by the Democrats.
Being right about Donald Trump being a terrible person doesn’t help them see why they should support the Democrats, who might – from their point of view -support terrible policies. Start somewhere else in your argument. Perhaps with a Democratic policy that really has done good things in the country or the world.
One of the best strategies here is to localize your arguments. What’s a policy of the last administration that directly impacted you or someone you know in a positive way? Better yet, what’s a policy that impacted them or someone they know? This is a great way to talk about the benefits or even generally the effects of these big policies – such as the infrastructure act – that often get overlooked ironically because they are so massive.
You can even go very general if you like. You could talk about what a good government should do in different situations, and align Democratic party thinking with that principle. You can then point to things Trump supports or has said that indicate difference or some static/conflict with that principle.
The goal here is not to prove that Trump is a terrible person. A lot of people who voted for Trump would agree with this. They voted for him because he doesn’t support “wokeness,” or because of the border or something like that. You should shift to policy and principle as a way of engaging these ideas to get the other person to see your position.
Point out that our system works by voting for policy not promise. The record is essential even if you don’t like the people or personalities in a party. You should always try to direct the argument toward policies and what these policies mean for our everyday lives.
General Advice for Anyone
Establishing an argument requires you to really figure out what idea you’d like to defend or what idea the other person is defending. You can then choose ways to engage with it. By the evidence, by definition, by degree, or by action. There’s also a other way to deal with it and that’s to say wrong forum or wrong place for the conversation. That might work for some argument averse people, but it’s not often what people who wish to share their views will choose.
The best reason to engage an argument, particularly at a gathering of family or friends is not to make fun of them, belittle them, troll them, or watch people get angry. The reason is to reflect on your own ideas and views. What are our beliefs if not their articulation? We articulate our principles to ourselves every day. And if we don’t, we run the risk of losing the reasons why we believe what we do. Argument with other people is the way in which we examine and understand our own reasoning, or lack thereof, and correct it in ways that not only allow us to communicate our views better to other people but explain them better to ourselves, to really understand why we feel and think the way we do. There’s no other tool quite like it.