Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument
1–10 of 65 posts
Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument
#2Politics is the art of persuading people they already agree with you. Subtler arguments are much better than brazen ones for doing this, and getting people to change their mind - and good politicians exploit this fact whenever they're in a setting that lets them.
24/7 media, and national coverage when somebody "flip-flops," might have contributed to politicians doing this less often, but I'm not sure.
And don't forget that a political debate isn't supposed to end with either politician changing their mind; it's supposed to end up with the spectators making up their mind about the politicians (which is why in those sorts of debates, you're supposed to use arguments that appeal mostly to your own supporters, assuming you have enough of them.)
Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument
#3Or if you want to have a population with a dogmatic rigid attitude then you make everything a symbol for "who they are and what they believe in." I have been to countries that are more nationalistic than the USA and many minds are closed when it comes to even realizing that questions can be asked. The sphere of what is the truth is so large it obscures all vision.
Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument
#4Funny to read knee-jerk reactions in the comment section. Many commenters missed the point completely.
Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument
#5'Winning an argument' is a magic bullet that doesn't exist. Otherwise it would be called 'teaching'
I'm not trying to change the person's mind when I enter into a debate, I'm trying to plant a seed of empathy for them to see things from another perspective so that their own brain begins to work against their existing bias.
I also tend to be one of those crazy people that believe their are a lot of grey areas when science isn't involved.
Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument
#6'Winning an argument' is a magic bullet that doesn't exist. Otherwise it would be called 'teaching'
I'm not trying to change the person's mind when I enter into a debate, I'm trying to plant a seed of empathy for them to see things from another perspective so that their own brain begins to work against their existing bias.
I also tend to be one of those crazy people that believe their are a lot of grey areas when science isn't involved.
Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument
#7The best insight here is that self-worth and fear of shaming are the main motivators for not agreeing.
A weaker argument, that is less threatening to self-worth is one way of preventing that your discussion partner goes on the defense.
Another way is to make him feel safer in the sense that he can trust that you will not hurt his feelings. This can be done by affirming that you are on the same page with him, that you and him share the same goal. You can also do this by denying what the other person might be afraid of, such as "I don't think your opinion is stupid" or "I don't want to abolish guns for hunting purposes". These methods come from "Crucial Conversations", it goes in depth on the underlying emotional motivations of conversations. Great book.
Another, cheaper tactic is to acknowledge positive characteristics of the other, making that person feel better about himself. This way, their self-worth is less vulnerable and they are more open to arguments (although this frequently fails because people distrust compliments from people that pose a threat).
Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument
#8The best insight here is that self-worth and fear of shaming are the main motivators for not agreeing. A weaker argument, that is less threatening to self-worth is one way of preventing that your discussion partner goes on the defense. Another way is to make him feel safer in the sense that he can trust that you will not hurt his feelings. This can be done by affirming that you are on the same page with him, that you…
Great point! So many comments on HN need to start off with one such sentence. I think this is called etiquette.
Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument
#9My take away here is that we need to educate people in such a way they view ones' ability to change their position given new evidence as a positive. Like scientists do.
I guess I always felt people didn't value this trait but I needed to have it spelled out for me in this article. Why in the world would any person value themselves more having been right all along. Why wouldn't they care about educating themselves every day.
Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument
#10My take away here is that we need to educate people in such a way they view ones' ability to change their position given new evidence as a positive. Like scientists do. I guess I always felt people didn't value this trait but I needed to have it spelled out for me in this article. Why in the world would any person value themselves more having been right all along. Why wouldn't they care about educating themselves eve…
I have a couple of older relatives who were gentleman's-C athlete types at an Ivy League school. Majored in History or something. Both very successful in banking.
Some things they have in common are: they're both very slow to form an opinion, seldom have an opinion on anything they don't need to have an opinion about, very interested to hear new evidence or arguments about something they do have an interest in, and very gracious about letting you down gently if they do have to win an argument (even if they can be colossal dicks in many other respects). Uninformed people think they're dumb.
tl;dr Roger Sterling is the smartest person on Mad Men.