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

51–60 of 65 posts

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

#51

Post by bad_user »

rdtsc wrote: post #50

I use another tactic sometimes, somewhat related. I make a stronger and radically (more inflammatory if you wish) than the person I am talking to. It has to be just inflammatory enough for them to start defending the weaker more moderate position, basically leaning towards the direction you'd want to persuade them originally. For example, I have some hard core Fox News watching Republicans in my extended family. So s…

This works well and it's called shifting the overton window: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

It has been used by politicians quite successfully. Like for example if a party wants to make abortions illegal after 3 months of pregnancy, it's better if they start from an outrageous position, like criminalizing all abortions, after which their real target starts being seen as a reasonable compromise. This also works the other way too. Many people that are anti abortions have had abortions themselves or have family members that did - throwing jail time into the conversation or other outrageous positions like criminalizing pregnancies without a license, does wonders, but of course, politicians have to be more careful otherwise they risk losing votes.

If you pay attention, this happens all the time.

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

#52

Post by nateabele »

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…

> 1. Is life more important than liberty or vice versa? (ooh this reverses vs. the abortion issue regarding political lines)

The trouble here is that, especially compared to loss of life, liberty is an abstraction, and the effects of removing it are difficult to quantify.

For example, how much violence is prevented by armed citizens, which studies indicate are a major deterrent? (Keep in mind, police are rarely able to do anything more than identify bodies after-the-fact). [0][1]

Or, to put it to the express purpose of the 2nd Amendment, what impact would total gun control have on the probability of the US eventually becoming a tyrannical state?

Reasoning from first principles is definitely a good start. For example, no pro-choice advocate likes the idea of dead fetuses/babies (whichever term makes you feel more comfortable), just as no conservative likes the idea of sick grandmothers dying in their homes or poor people starving.

There's still plenty of disagreement about how to get there, and a lot of it depends on how you define your terms, and how deeply you consider the indirect consequences of each side's proposed solution.

[0] http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/nov/16/burglars-fear-resid...

[1] http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

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

#54

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#55

Post by adamzochowski »

rdtsc wrote: post #50

I use another tactic sometimes, somewhat related. I make a stronger and radically (more inflammatory if you wish) than the person I am talking to. It has to be just inflammatory enough for them to start defending the weaker more moderate position, basically leaning towards the direction you'd want to persuade them originally. For example, I have some hard core Fox News watching Republicans in my extended family. So s…

Looks like a variant of Poe's Law.

> without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

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

#56

Post by einhverfr »

ds9 wrote: post #39
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 sta…

> 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".

But that is based on an idea that life is more important than liberty, right? That statement follows from it.

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

#57

Post by einhverfr »

snowwrestler wrote: post #38
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 "wh…

I don't think that at all for a couple reasons.

First the article talks about the need to save honor and avoid shame.

Also full agreement is not needed, just seeking common ground would be helpful.

The problem with political arguments, to be honest, is that our parties, which don't represent our interests, have convinced everyone that they are good and the other guys are evil. I think exploring the common ground in the first principles will help people come together across political lines and clarify where we agree and where we disagree so that the narrow political consensus is not what the big bankers say it is but what the people say it is.

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

#58

Post by einhverfr »

nhaehnle wrote: post #47
einhverfr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said political lines, not party lines. My point is that people IME who are more likely to see liberty as the winning interest in abortion are more likely to see life as the winning interest in gun control and vice versa.

I would like to point out that nobody really sees liberty in the abstract as a winning interest in the abortion debate. Pro-choicers clearly do not care about the "liberty" of the fetus, while pro-lifers clearly do not care about the "liberty" of the woman. The whole issue arises because liberty in the abstract cannot have a full victory, because different kinds of liberty collide. So then you have those who think so…

Maybe we need to discuss what liberty is, and what the relationship between power and responsibility is (I think these questions are one and the same btw, but others may differ).

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

#59

Post by rdtsc »

bad_user wrote: post #51
rdtsc wrote: post #50

I use another tactic sometimes, somewhat related. I make a stronger and radically (more inflammatory if you wish) than the person I am talking to. It has to be just inflammatory enough for them to start defending the weaker more moderate position, basically leaning towards the direction you'd want to persuade them originally. For example, I have some hard core Fox News watching Republicans in my extended family. So s…

This works well and it's called shifting the overton window: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window It has been used by politicians quite successfully. Like for example if a party wants to make abortions illegal after 3 months of pregnancy, it's better if they start from an outrageous position, like criminalizing all abortions, after which their real target starts being seen as a reasonable compromise. This al…

Yes, thank you. I knew it has to have a name.

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

#60

Post by einhverfr »

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…

> Given these principles, at what point in existence does one qualify as having human rights and on what basis do we identify that point?

That's an important piece of the argument. Is personhood innate (in which case it must begin at conception, sicne there are no other bright lines in development that make universal sense across culture and time)? Or is it a social construct (in which case we have no right to see abortion as different from Roman infanticide)?

In other words, is personhood and human rights innate, in which case you must be a pro-life extremist if you are willing to seriously argue that? Or is personhood socially recognized and constructed, in which case you must accept that abortion is infanticide but also that infanticide is ok if the culture says so? The thing is both of these are relatively extreme viewpoints. Very few on the right want abortion to be punished the same as infanticide, and very few on the left are willing to acknowledge that if abortion is ok, then infanticide must be too (but there are some, see NARAL and Planned Parenthood's defence of killing fetuses born alive after failed late-term abortions).

> In establishing the criteria for human life, we should consider as many implications as possible.

Doesn't that mean we should leave it up to local cultures to sort this out for themselves? If Rome wants to mandate infanticide in the case of severe birth defects, bully for them.

Post reply on HN