Civil discourse seems to be on its death bed. I remember during high school at Milton Academy having delightful spirited debates with my classmates every day and then all going back to being friends no matter how much I disagreed. I also competed in state Congressional Debate tournaments (and won a large number of them) which showed me a few things.
These debates taught me a great deal of extremely useful lessons that I have continued to use almost daily for over two decades. The events themselves were very similar to the US Congress. We prepared and submitted bills, elected a speaker of the house, had motions and actions we could take, and then took part in making speeches, responding to cross examination, and voting on the bills.
The first event made a few things very clear. First off, almost all the best points to be made on any given bill (topic) were fairly straightforward and would be made by whoever was lucky enough to give their speeche first. Interestingly, presentation order was entirely determined by whoever was elected as Speaker. Being elected Speaker was therefore determined by two things: how fair you were and whether you’d also favor those who voted for you. I’ll never forget a national competition where all the more prominent schools in debate elected a speaker who didn’t call on me once. After the first 2-3 speeches for yay or nay on a bill, the debate would generally lose steam and any speech, no matter how good, would not be effective since it was just rehashing what everyone already knew.
Second and related, people generally made up their minds on which side they would present based upon their own personal beliefs.
The combination of these two led me to a unique solution: always study both sides, know the good and bad arguments for each side as well as the best counterpoints, and then elect to speak for either side as opportunity presents and be effective at arguing either way you happen to be selected.
That tactic, along with networking with other competitors so I’d get called on, proved extremely effective for a number of reasons.
See, when time came to speak on a bill, I’d frequently put my hand up to speak first on both sides until I was chosen. Since I was prepared to argue for or against the given topic, this meant I usually got to give earlier, more effective speeches.
Second, knowing the ins and outs of every argument plus knowing the strengths and weaknesses of each individual point made me very effective in cross examination. I’d usually hone in on the weakest point of any speaker’s argument, especially if it was one of the primary ones, and ask deadly questions. Several times, I left the presenter speechless with no response. I recall audibly hearing the judges talk after this would happen and a lot of eyes on me. It’s something I take great pride in to this day. There’s nothing quite like eviscerating someone’s argument in competition with a single question.
Between the ability to give speeches early and make sure I was always called on in cross-examination, I was very successful in my debate career.
However, these lessons are ridiculously useful in life. See, facts don’t have bias but opinions do. And opinions are inherently made without knowing all of the facts (how would you know if you even knew all of them…or didn’t?). Learning at an early age that opinions are inherently valid since they are just personal views (and who’s to say any personal view is demonstrably invalid) and made up from pieces of a whole picture has changed my life in so many ways.
Ever since then I have looked at any subject, whether in my personal life, as a CEO, as a romantic partner, etc. as something where I needed to inherently gather as many facts as possible before making up my opinion, and that all other opinions on it are perfectly valid as well since, almost universally, they are simply making a decision based on a different set of facts. One of my favorite sayings which has proven powerful over and over again is, “I don’t know, but I’ll get back to you.”
There are three primary side effects of this. First, I naturally see both sides of an argument and can easily take either side. A result of that is precisely why I’m good at making my points, since I already know all the counter-arguments and consider them while writing or talking to anyone. Two of my favorite pastimes are either taking a stance I don’t actually have and seeing if I can win a debate and also switching sides with someone halfway through and seeing if I can win from both sides. Second, I make sure I’m so well informed that I can usually educate someone on any topic to the point they actually question their opinion (more or less frequently). More on that in a moment. And third, it made me very successful in my career when I was always willing to look at all sides of an issue and try to absorb as many facts as I could before rendering a decision based purely on logic. I have never, ever been afraid to say I was wrong and rarely fight for my position unless I know I am the best informed on the topic.
I’ll tell one story. I was at the Battery in San Francisco when I met a beautiful young lady. We started a lovely nice intellectual discussion and she was clearly very intelligent. We eventually got around to what she did and she was the Chief of Staff for a sitting US Senator.
Now, I didn’t particularly agree with this Senator on a lot of things, but I recognized their opinions were valid (and popular). So I asked her what got her into politics and she said gun control.
So we discussed gun control, which is a topic I know far too much about since it’s so common.
For instance, she said she was very upset every time there was a school shooting which is why we needed to ban “machine guns.” I immediately noticed she had made a mistake. I asked her what kind of guns she thought school shootings were carried out with. Again, she repeated “automatic weapons” and that “anyone can get one. It’s ridiculous.”
So, I calmly and gently told her that fully automatic weapons are effectively illegal in the US and no school shooting in my memory had ever been done with one. I also explained the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and a machine gun, which she did not know.
She was incredulous at first, but let me bring up articles on my phone that in fact said, no, machine guns are not used in school shootings, and yes, they are effectively illegal.
As I mentioned, she was bright and apparently this was a big awakening for her, since she started to ask me what else she might not know about guns. I let her know for instance there are over 300,000,000 rifles in the US and they are only used in about 200 homicides a year, making them multitudes safer than practically anything else so common such as driving, biking in a city, or even scuba diving.
We spent the evening with both of us enjoying very friendly debate for people who held rather divergent views and by the end of the night she admitted she had to reconsider some of her stances. She asked me out after. It’s a good memory.
But this leads me to the fact that sadly such enjoyable experiences where people are willing to learn are far too uncommon. And that leads to how you know when you’ve won an argument.
See, most people refuse to ever admit they’ve lost an argument, but they will run out of steam and strong points fairly early on. If you are prepared and present facts calmly, rationally, and without emotional involvement that make a strong, cogent argument, it’s pretty hard for 99% of people to effectively refute it.
Which is where the personal attacks come in.
The first sign you are winning an argument is when someone questions your sources. If they refuse to believe anything not published in the New York Times for instance, you may have trouble making a factual argument. But the very fact they are attacking your sources is evidence they don’t have any actual counter-arguments to your points; they instead have to attack the veracity of the information, not the information itself.
The second and clear sign you’ve won an argument is when they become angry. For some reason, people absolutely hate losing even small arguments. It’s something that makes me very sad in today’s world as someone who actually loves losing an argument since it means I learned something! But most people no matter how good of a point you make, will then start getting angry and making person or ad-hominem attacks.
At this point, smile and bow out. You’ve won.
That lesson took me much longer to learn as, like most people, I wanted the other person to admit defeat. Most people never will. But once they are angry and you are calm, everyone knows who is right.
So, to consistently win debates or arguments, here’s what you need:
As full a set of facts as possible, representing both sides
Understand the points and counterpoints of every side of an argument, which are strongest (and weakest), and how to refute them effectively with fact to your desired end
Don’t get emotionally involved. As they say, “speak quietly and carry a big stick.” The best way to present your points is calmly and without emotion. The huge stick you are carrying is the wealth of knowledge and preparation you made in the first two steps above.
I actually avoid getting into debates these days since I spend far too much time educating myself about the facts of so many topics (hence this blog). Most people base opinions on emotion and there is no convincing someone they are in the wrong if that is true. So I very happily keep my mouth shut and nod along rather than tap into my potential array of counterpoints.
With this approach, I have greatly enjoyed always being able to have a very objective view on many things. Despite what you may think about this blog, I am very bimodal when it comes to almost all topics. In politics for instance, I pick and choos what I believe in from either party (frequently somewhere in between) since I am able to absorb and understand both sides.
You should probably wonder if I believe in gun control or not...
It’s frequently most fun to make the point that makes discussion interesting…not necessarily what you believe.