Focused Argumentation: Avoiding Distractions When Making a Point.

Sometimes, when debating someone on a topic you're much better versed-in, there's a sad realization that the person you've just invested quality time into is either intensely stupid or being dishonest, usually as a transparent attempt to preserve his/her ego as they realize they're on the losing side of an argument.

One trend I've noticed among Americans I meet is their unwillingness to admit defeat, but rather, they want to enjoy the annoying 'resolution' of 'agreeing to disagree'. It goes without saying that anyone in the history of time who disagreed had a tacit agreement to disagree, and really the idea that any disagreement needs an agreement is just silly. Someone who is satisfied with 'agreeing to disagree' is just exiting the conversation, and to me that's an admission of defeat, as generally they would rather you never brought the topic up again. I see this as more of a method of controlling the conversation rather than solving anything, as often, those who want to 'agree to disagree' are out of ideas or commentary and simply want to abort the topic.

However, if the person who holds an idea can't defend it with rational argument, why would he/she be so quick to 'agree to disagree'? Could we 'agree to disagree' with slavery, or Hitler? Hell no. I believe in making a strong point which withers the opposition and never let up until the other side concedes, or at least till the bystanders listening in are swayed, pressuring those with silly ideas to abandon them.

For instance, some people take their religion so personally that to 'attack' their religion (as they call it), you're 'attacking' them. But, don't be so quick as a skeptic to agree to those terms or give credence to that emotional ruse. If you do, you've agreed that hurt feelings are off-limits and you've effectively muted yourself. You're not 'attacking' anything, you're 'reviewing' a claim they ostensibly support, and they have no right to make a claim they're not willing to defend (especially if it involves you burning in Hell for eternity).

If one can't defend a claim then the claim is forfeit for that argument (even if that same person debates it elsewhere with a less-skeptical audience). It's important to let the opponent know that you're not attacking him or her (no matter how much they insist on being a martyr), but you're reviewing their *claim*. This lets them save face when and if they decide to reject their claims later on, and adds a more comfortable layer of separation.

Same thing with such Ad-Hominem ruses as, 'Are you saying I'm dumb?' or 'Are you saying I'm evil because you think my religion is evil?'. Nope. It's all about the claim, not your opponent's feeling. If your opponent feels dumb or evil because of what he's defending, then that is his problem, and you can keep it his problem. Some people will dominate the conversation (if you let them) and follow their logical tangents into the cesspool of emotion and hurt feelings. Hurt feelings are just noise when it distracts from the issue at hand, provided you're sticking to the topic and not getting sidetracked into Ad-Hominem personal attack (which should be avoided in any argument).

With religion, theists hold the burden of proof and atheists can safely push that onus on them to prove their claim, otherwise retract the claim and backtrack into agnosticism (and thus atheism). Likewise, it's best not to let theists define what an 'atheist' is unless they nail it....as this sets up a strawman argument and misleads others. Before debating anyone, it's best to agree on the terms you're discussing...if not, that needs to be clarified. Sometimes the argument can never get past terms if they're being dishonest about them as a strawman they can knock down easily.

Example, anti-choicers call themselves 'pro life' and call everyone else murderers or baby killers. Shockingly, many pro-choicers call the anti-choicers 'pro life' as well, accepting the terms coined by the opposition. One can be pro-life and pro-choice. What I do is call the misnamed 'pro-lifers' what they are, 'anti-choice' just as Richard Dawkins has taken to calling those who deny evolution, 'evolution deniers' which conveys more information than 'creationists'.

Those who support women's rights are 'pro-choice'. Re-think the terms your opponents use, as they're often set up to make themselves look good and slander you at ever oppportunity. You don't want bystanders listening in to be mis-educated either, so it's good to get the terms correct before proceeding.

You will often find that theists love to hit and run. They'll make a series of flawed points which take several minutes each to address and then rush off or change the subject so you'll stop talking. I try not to let debate opponents such a theists control the conversation in this way. If you find they're wanting to run just tell them you're gonna make a closing statement, then let them run for the hills after.

Ridicule is a useful tool as well, especially when dealing with someone making dishonest points with some kind of audience (online or in-person). If you constantly catch someone abandoning agreed-upon points of logic (such as, a good god should not murder babies), then call them on it. Even if the theist lies like crazy, the bystanders will notice and the theist might even be a bit self-conscious. Sometimes, when conversing one-on-one with a theist though, you'll get far more crazy responses than if you debate them with onlookers. On some level, those arguing dishonest points know what they're doing and won't be as likely to make silly points when they know they'll be ridiculed for them. The threat of ridicule seems harsh, but it keeps theists and other debate opponents a little more honest but more importantly, points that you win are way more obvious to everyone.

Those with horribly flawed positions have no chance of defending the positions with elegance and logic, so they have to resort to distraction, semantic tricks, selective reasoning, and more distraction which eventually will be interrupted by them trying to end the conversation before you can drive the point home.

Call people on their dishonest or poor argumentation-tactics and you'll have a more focused, more entertaining debate and expose the weakness in their arguments as you go. I also think it's never good to be soft on someone just because they're offended or are holding up their 'feelings' as some brick-wall impediment to solving the issue at hand. Make the point strong and clear, because hurt feelings go away, but there aren't many opportunities to make strong points sometimes. If you agree to be controlled by mere hurt-feelings you'll never make progress with a given point, because almost everyone who's being told they're wrong is at least a little offended (except the rare few who truly prefer facts over ego).

Lastly, if your points are good, they will continue to work on the mind of those you debate, long after you're done talking (even the hopeless cases abandon the worst of their arguments when roundly defeated often enough). It's not easy, it feels repetitive and sometimes even the best arguments are lost on people. Remember, you're not just arguing for the opponent but the audience as well (when there is one). So, even if your opponent is a lost cause you'll often still make your points to those who are listening-in.

-dB-