Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by einhverfr » Mon, Aug 26, 2013, 3:06 PM UTC

jpwagner wrote: post #18

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…

I couldn't agree more with your "first principle" approach. However with regards to " ...this reverses vs. the abortion issue regarding political lines ", I'll just gently suggest that you reconsider what your first principle question is (without trying to make this a political debate). Is it possible that your assumption that the political lines are illogical is invalid? A thought: coming up with the right questions…

Actually I kind of agree with you. I noted it mostly because it occurred to me that this was odd, and that's an indication that there is something that can be talked about, questioned, and discussed there.

Any organic view of the world will have areas of self-contradiction and these are healthy because they represent points from which change can come. A perfectly consistent view of the world would be a very dismal thing, stagnant and detached from the complexities of life.

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

#22

Post by chrismealy » Mon, Aug 26, 2013, 3:20 PM UTC

This is true in the short run, but in the long run you can wear people down and get through to them. Nobody said politics was easy.

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

#23

Post by jakobe » Mon, Aug 26, 2013, 3:33 PM UTC

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 wish HN had a "star" button or so to keep track of insightful comments.

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

#24

Post by nathan_long » Mon, Aug 26, 2013, 3:56 PM UTC

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 rights and on what basis do we identify that point?

Possible criteria include unique DNA (eg, from conception), heartbeat, ability to feel pain, a particular level of cognitive ability, etc.

If a zygote is essentially like a tumor - not yet a human life - then abortion at that stage would be no different morally than having a tooth removed.

If a fetus at 38 weeks is essentially like a newborn, then abortion at that stage would be no different morally than infanticide.

In establishing the criteria for human life, we should consider as many implications as possible. Eg, if humanity is determined by cognitive development, do intelligent people get more right to life than average or impaired people?

If we agreed on these principles and criteria, we could have consistent law. Currently we (in the US) have a hodgepodge; eg, abortion by punch to the abdomen is murder but by scalpel and consent at the same stage of development is just an elective procedure.

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

#25

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 26, 2013, 3:58 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

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

#26

Post by AndrewKemendo » Mon, Aug 26, 2013, 4:20 PM UTC

>And if you’re wrong about a bunch of things, you’re obviously not as smart or as good or as worthwhile a person as you previously believed.

These are all true statements. Most people are not as smart or good or worthwhile as they believe, myself included. That makes true rational implementation of policy extremely unlikely .

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

#27

Post by mikeash » Mon, Aug 26, 2013, 4:32 PM UTC

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…

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 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?"

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

#28

Post by aray » Mon, Aug 26, 2013, 4:40 PM UTC

jonnathanson wrote: post #14

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…

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…

Also not making a discussion into an argument between adversaries.

> The arguments that are most threatening to opponents are viewed as the strongest and cited most often. Liberals are baby-killers while conservatives won’t let women control their own body. [[examples from the article]]

Both of these are not only threatening, they're over-generalizing to the point of being wrong, and demeaning to the point of being insulting.

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

#29

Post by IvyMike » Mon, Aug 26, 2013, 4:47 PM UTC

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 played for years, so actual good Go players may find my insight pretty naive.)

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

#30

Post by nitid_name » Mon, Aug 26, 2013, 4:56 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #27

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…

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 where commonality begins to form. We might not agree on the exchange rate between freedom and life expectancy, but we will likely agree that there is one.

It reminds me of an old joke:

A man asks a woman if she'd sleep with him for a million dollars. She looks him up and down, smiles, and says "sure." He then asks her if she'd do it for a dollar. She slaps him, asking what sort of girl he thinks she is. He replies she already told him what sort of girl she is and now they're just haggling.