Random and Speculative Thoughts Department:
How to Argue in the Absence of Good Will

By Wendy McElroy
[email protected]

Exclusive to The Libertarian Enterprise

[Permission to reprint is hereby granted as long as the reprint is not for commercial purposes and citations are fully provided.]

         In many cases, when you argue with someone, there will be no evidence of good will on their part. The other person will be rude, insulting or simply boorish. At this point, handling yourself well intellectually consists of standing up for yourself in the face of abuse.
         The first thing to determine about an abusive discussion is whether this is an exchange in which you wish to be involved. Should you continue to argue and reason with a blatantly hostile person? In general, my advice is to walk away. As Thomas Paine once said, to argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. What is the point?
         On the other hand, there can be overriding reasons why you should continue sparring with a hostile person. For example, you may be involved in a formal debate or a confrontation during a business conference, in which there is no option of backing away without damage. Or, the other person may be a relative or loved one, with whom you desperately want to communicate. Absorbing some abuse may be a price you are willing to pay to make that person finally understand your perspective. Another reason for continuing may be that a crowd has gathered around the discussion and you wish to impress these third-party onlookers. Or you might want to practice how to handle hostility in public situations.
         If you decide to engage in an argument that has little good will, make sure you exert control over its circumstances. Strategies for Guiding the Argument
         Ascertaining the following information about the ongoing argument will give you far greater control of its content and direction:
         1. Determine what kind of argument you are getting into.
         Is it a factual dispute? For example, are you arguing about whether women are capable of being doctors and lawyers? The most effective way to counter such an empirical claim may be with statistics that prove the contrary. If you are arguing over a moral point, however, statistics may be inappropriate. For example, whether or not abortion involves the willful killing of another human being is probably not a question that can be resolved by statistical arguments. You will have to address the disagreement on a more fundamental level.
         Tailor your arguments to the level of the subject under dispute.
         2. Find out what would resolve the argument.
         Too many arguments are endless, with no sense of either side giving an inch on the subject under dispute. You should ask the other person: what, in principle, would it take to convince you that I am right? If you are arguing with someone who claims blacks are intellectually inferior, for example, you should ask him what evidence would convince him he was wrong. Don't let him back away from this question: press it. Would high I.Q. scores be compelling evidence? When you have ascertained what constitutes convincing evidence to him. then you have isolated a productive direction in which the conversation can proceed.
         Often you find that there is nothing, in principle, which would change his opinion. He holds this opinion as a matter of dogma, which is not open either to evidence or to reason. The conversation has nowhere to go. And -- after pointing this out to third-parties -- it is probably best to end the conversation.
         But...be prepared to answer the same question, because the other person is likely to ask it. Ask yourself, what would convince me that my position is wrong?
         3. Determine who has the Burden of Proof.
         It is a sound principle of logic that the burden of proof lies with whomever is making the positive assertion, not with the person denying or questioning it. This has been called 'The Onus Principle.' If the other person claims 'Y is true' -- e.g. you are a murderer -- by the rules of logic you have every right to request his evidence for this assertion. On what does he base his conclusion? In the absence of evidence for a positive statement, you may reasonably believe the negative.
         On the other hand, a negative statement can not be directly proven. Consider how you would prove the statement 'I am not a murderer.' The best you could do is establish that there is absolutely no evidence that you have killed anyone. And, in the absence of evidence for the positive statement, it is reasonable to believe the negative.
         Equally, if you say 'I have no reason to believe Y is true', you are not assuming a burden of proof because you are not making a knowledge claim. All you are saying is that you are not convinced of something. Here again, however, it is valid for the other person to ask you: 'what would convince you?'
         4. Determine what the end point of the argument should be.
         This does not mean determining when you have won the argument hands-down: that is an unrealistic goal. This does means one of two things:
         a. knowing which point in the conversation, by your standards, constitutes a satisfactory resolution of the disagreement. For example, if the other person begins by claiming women are less intelligent than men and gives enough ground to come around to accepting that some women are more intelligent than some men...is this a satisfactory resolution? If not, define what would be? Perhaps your goal is to convince third-party onlookers and, when you perceive this has occurred, you feel satisfied.
         Whenever you reach the point of being satisfied, the conversation should either end or move onto another topic.
         b. knowing the point at which a satisfactory resolution is clearly not possible. This is the point at which further discussion would be useless, either because of ill will between the two of you or because the argument has deteriorated into repetition. If discussion is pointless...walk away. Don't waste your time and energy.
         The importance of knowing when to end an exchange was dramatically illustrated to me at a party one night when I was arguing with a woman. She had announced that a system of morality was not possible without a fundamentalist belief in the Bible.
         In my mind, I quickly reviewed possible strategies. I could have pointed out that a long history of moral theory stretched back in history, well before the B.C. years, and that many non-fundamentalist religious systems exist, such as Buddhism. But I decided not to open the worm-filled can of comparative religion.
         Instead I choose a personal appeal. Having observed how happy her homelife seemed, I brought up her two young children and her husband, who was sitting on a couch a few feet to one side of us. I asked, "Are you telling me that the only reason you act morally is because you are a fundamentalist? Are you saying that, if you lost your faith, you might go home tonight and murder your husband and two children?"
         I was trying to establish that something else -- the bonds of humanity and mutual love, perhaps -- keeps human beings from harming each other. After staring at her husband for a long moment, the woman said "yes, I might." At this, I experienced a blinding insight. The conversation was over.
         5. Keep a tight leash on the topic.
         Most people are not skilled at arguing and their conversation resembles a stream-of-consciousness that wanders almost drunkenly from issue to issue. The two of you may start out with a clear point of disagreement, but then the other people might wander down strange twisting path which leads nowhere. By the time an hour or two has passed, you have no sense of where the conversation is going or where it has been.
         If you are enjoying the exchange, this is not a problem. But the context of the argument I am presenting now is one that you are conducting solely to convince on-lookers, or for some other purpose than enjoyment. The point at which the argument runs wildly in all directions is the point at which you have lost control of the exchange.
         Rein in the conversation. Don't let your partner drift off the topic. If you are discussing your company's sexual harassment policies with a co-worker at a business meeting, don't let the conversation deteriorate into whether there should be free doughnuts with coffee in the morning. If the co-worker persists in introducing an irrelevant topic, politely insist, "That's an interesting point, but it's not what we are discussing. Why don't we hash out sexual harassment first and then we can go back to doughnuts?" Keep returning to the subject under discussion. If your co-worker doesn't alter his or her wandering ways, bluntly ask "Why do you keep changing the subject? Why aren't you willing to talk about sexual harassment?"
         6. Ask probing questions of the other person.
         A well-timed, well-delivered question can accomplish a number of goals:
         a. It can bring the other person's confused thinking into clear focus. This is especially valuable when you confront a person who is muddle-headed about an issue. Ask politely, "Why do you believe that is true? Were you an eye-witness to the event? What is the source of your information?" If done respectfully, you can make the person realize how ill-formed and unfounded his opinions are without humiliating him. On-lookers will see you as being curious and careful, rather than bitchy.
         b. a perceptive question does more than refute an argument. It can uncover the faulty premises from which the argument sprang. Perhaps a co-worker is arguing that Mary did not merit the promotion she received last week. Instead of presenting all the reasons Mary did, indeed, richly deserve her promotion, you might ask, "What has she done that makes you think that?" His answer might surprise you. For example, he might say 'Mary got married last month, which means she'll be getting pregnant and be unable to give enough time to her work.'
         c. A question can effectively derail an abusive arguer who is trying to press you against the wall intellectually. Imagine that your co-worker has angrily related an incident for which he was later reprimanded for sexual harassment. He now glares at you and, in a commanding voice, he demands to know what the hell it is that women want from men?
         On one level, his question is not a question at all. Or at least, it is a rhetorical one, not meant to elicit information. Your co-worker is merely venting his frustration on you.
         Don't try to answer him directly because this will only encourage him to badger you further. Come back with a provocative question of your own...one that demands a response. For example: "Where would you draw the line in sexual harassment? At rape?" Put him on the defensive.
         7. Take your Time in Making Points.
         Don't always jump back with an immediate reply to a statement or question, even if you have one on the tip of your tongue. Count to three before responding to an argument. The pause will make you appear thoughtful and it will create anticipation for what you say. It may also cut off any inappropriate snap reaction, which you might have a tendency to blurt out in an unguarded moment.
         8. Ask a Personal Question.
         This is a last ditch strategy before you give up entirely on the other person and walk away from the exchange. Generally speaking, personal questions or attacks are in poor taste when you are trying to sort through the truth and falsehood of ideas. But, in a hostile argument, good taste and proper respect havealready been breached. If the other person persists in sarcasm, rudeness and crude dismissal, you are well within your rights to demand, 'why are you treating me with such disrespect?'
         But, if the conversation has deteriorated to that extent, do not expect to salvage it.
         The above suggestions are techniques for controlling an argument. But please remember: the purpose of controlling an argument is not to take advantage of the other person. It is to prevent him from taking advantage of you. The goal of arguing is not to win, but to get closer to the truth. However skilled you become at manipulating the conversation, it is a breach of intellectual honesty to use ideas as weapons against people. Ideas are tools. Employing them to hurt or humiliate anyone is a poor use of truth.

A contributing editor to Liberty magazine, Wendy McElroy has published widely in feminism beginning in 1983 with Freedom, Feminism and the State (CATO) and most recently in 1995 with XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography (St. Martin's Press). Her articles have appeared in such diverse publications as National Review and Penthouse. Her 'day' job is writing and editing documentaries, some of which have been recorded by Walter Cronkite, George C. Scott and Harry Reasoner."

EasyNet supports the Libertarian Enterprise. See us at www.ezez.com

Next to advance to the next article, or Previous to return to the previous article, or Index to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 29, June 1, 1997.