Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument

psmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 65 posts

Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument

#31

Post by simonh »

DanHulton wrote: post #16
jonnathanson wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. I would even go so far as to say that it's not about making a "weaker" argument; it's about making a more socially nuanced argument. Context counts. Subtext counts. They count especially when there's an audience to the argument (real or perceived). When someone feels his face, or dignity, or credibility is on the line, he feels intense pressure to stick to his guns -- and to keep his guns blazing. Convers…

This feels a lot like John Cleese's advice on creativity within teams: You need to be surrounded by people who will build on ideas with you, not people who will lead with "no". The moment you have a person in the room with you who will shoot you down on an idea, trust falters and creativity dies. Honestly, I've thought a lot lately about how I argue, and I find I get a lot more accomplished when I lead with "Yes, and…

> I feel like I should have taken drama instead of band when I was younger and I'd have reached this point sooner.

I took drama lessons when I was a kid and have never regretted it. It's helped me in interviewing, meeting and greeting customers, giving presentations, providing training, all sorts. It's always hard to consider hypotheticals like how would I have fared without the drama training, but I have no doubt it has been a huge help. I'm encouraging my kids to do the same.

Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument

#32

Post by randallsquared »

nitid_name wrote: post #30
mikeash wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I rather disagree. In my opinion, principles exist as a fallback when you don't have enough information, time, or intelligence to reason something fully. This is because the world is not black-and-white, while principles are, so they will let you down if you rely on them too heavily. The right answer to all of your questions is, "it depends". For example, a society where everyone is completely free but dies at the ag…

>The right answer to all of your questions is, "it depends". For example, a society where everyone is completely free but dies at the age of 5 is not really worth living in, nor is a society where everyone lives to 100 as a slave. Thus there is no one answer to "Is life more important than liberty?" I think you're missing the point. The followup question to "It depends" is "On what?" The answer to that question is wh…

The joke actually makes the opposite point from your point that agreement on substance is easier after agreement that a range exists.

Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument

#33

Post by mikeash »

nitid_name wrote: post #30
mikeash wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I rather disagree. In my opinion, principles exist as a fallback when you don't have enough information, time, or intelligence to reason something fully. This is because the world is not black-and-white, while principles are, so they will let you down if you rely on them too heavily. The right answer to all of your questions is, "it depends". For example, a society where everyone is completely free but dies at the ag…

>The right answer to all of your questions is, "it depends". For example, a society where everyone is completely free but dies at the age of 5 is not really worth living in, nor is a society where everyone lives to 100 as a slave. Thus there is no one answer to "Is life more important than liberty?" I think you're missing the point. The followup question to "It depends" is "On what?" The answer to that question is wh…

That sounds OK, but seems like it's getting pretty distant from what I identify as "principles".

Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument

#34

Post by jpadkins »

nathan_long wrote: post #24
einhverfr wrote: post #11

I have also said we should talk more about first principles and less about the policy arguments at first. Regarding gun control, the first principles at issue are these: 1. Is life more important than liberty or vice versa? (ooh this reverses vs. the abortion issue regarding political lines) 2. Do we trust the government to fully monopolize force? Do we trust the police? the army? Should the government be there prima…

Agreed about "first principles". This is how I'd frame the abortion debate: 1. Nearly everyone agrees that a normal adult has a rights over his/her own body. Eg, a tumor cell has no right to life and the host has every right to kill it. 2. Nearly everyone agrees that the parent of a toddler may not kill the toddler for any reason. Given these principles, at what point in existence does one qualify as having human rig…

My thoughts on this topic have also followed this same line of reasoning. My conclusion was to use the existing standard we already accepted for legal death. There is an established standard for when a doctor can declare someone 'legally dead' (absence of heartbeat and brainwaves). We should use the inverse for a legal definition of life. If a doctor can detect a heartbeat and certain brainwaves, then a second is involved and all laws applying to humans are in effect.

Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument

#35

Post by PavlovsCat »

jpadkins wrote: post #34
nathan_long wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed about "first principles". This is how I'd frame the abortion debate: 1. Nearly everyone agrees that a normal adult has a rights over his/her own body. Eg, a tumor cell has no right to life and the host has every right to kill it. 2. Nearly everyone agrees that the parent of a toddler may not kill the toddler for any reason. Given these principles, at what point in existence does one qualify as having human rig…

My thoughts on this topic have also followed this same line of reasoning. My conclusion was to use the existing standard we already accepted for legal death. There is an established standard for when a doctor can declare someone 'legally dead' (absence of heartbeat and brainwaves). We should use the inverse for a legal definition of life. If a doctor can detect a heartbeat and certain brainwaves, then a second is inv…

But doesn't the direction matter? Not having a heartbeat because the heart is still forming seems different from not having a heartbeat because, well, the heart isn't beating anymore.

Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument

#36

Post by hackula1 »

IvyMike wrote: post #29

Once upon a time, I learned to play the game Go. One of the key insights I took away was that if you directly attacked an enemy in a weak area, the enemy would defend in that area, making him strong there. Almost always you would end up with an impenetrable wall on both sides. There's an art to pressing your advantage in an area without making it an 'attack'. (In the end, I never really got that good and haven't play…

Risk has this same dynamic. Going head to head on main choke does nothing but let the other players come in and mop the floor with you and your opponent.

Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument

#37

Post by Florin_Andrei »

rjprins wrote: post #7

The 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…

Could it be that the tendency to preserve the coherence of one's views goes beyond self-worth? E.g., most people, I think, would try to avoid holding in their minds ideas which don't agree with each other. So, if your previously acquired ideas are already leaning this way, they may tend to oppose new ideas that are leaning that way.

Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument

#38

Post by snowwrestler »

einhverfr wrote: post #11

I have also said we should talk more about first principles and less about the policy arguments at first. Regarding gun control, the first principles at issue are these: 1. Is life more important than liberty or vice versa? (ooh this reverses vs. the abortion issue regarding political lines) 2. Do we trust the government to fully monopolize force? Do we trust the police? the army? Should the government be there prima…

As the article implies, this is exactly the type of argument that goes nowhere in politics, because the questions are too big.

You're right that if we could all agree on these things, political compromise would be easy, or even unnecessary. The problem is, we can't all agree on these things.

Politics works better at the practical level. Not so much "what do you believe," as "what are you prepared to live with" or "what will you give me if I give you something you want."

Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument

#39

Post by ds9 »

einhverfr wrote: post #11

I have also said we should talk more about first principles and less about the policy arguments at first. Regarding gun control, the first principles at issue are these: 1. Is life more important than liberty or vice versa? (ooh this reverses vs. the abortion issue regarding political lines) 2. Do we trust the government to fully monopolize force? Do we trust the police? the army? Should the government be there prima…

Those are the relevant first principles according to you. As the linked writer indicates, others believe the relevant principle is something like "whatever policy will produce the best outcome, according to statistics such as firearm deaths, is the right one".

I agree that we would be better off eliciting these sorts of underlying assumptions, and acknowledging them openly, and trying to discuss them - instead of stating value-judgment conclusions on the basis of unstated assumptions about principles.

In other words, people talk past each other, failing to address one another's real concerns. Taking gun control again, the "liberal" thinks the statistics (which may or may not be valid, etc.) are dispositive, while the "conservative" sees instead an issue of basic rights, to which the stats are hardly relevant. There is no progress unless each is willing to directly address the premises the other relies on.

Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument

#40

Post by snowwrestler »

rjprins wrote: post #7

The 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…

For me, the key way of thinking is that if I want someone to agree with me, my argument needs to make sense to them from within their own internal perspective. So to be effective I need to understand their perspective first, then see if what I want can be fit into it respectfully.

The big exception to this is if a third party is adjudicating the argument--like in a debate or trial. In that case, hammering the foe can help establish a perception of confidence and credibility with the 3rd party.

Post reply on HN