Don’t argue with people when you’re trying to convince them to change their minds.
Oftentimes, we resort to arguing with people when we want to sway them to our line of thinking. If you hold an entirely rational point of view, however, and your opponents ideas/beliefs are rooted in irrationality, what would lead you believe that being reasonable with them would persuade them into your specific belief? If they were reasonable people, they would already believe what you believe.
Sometimes the best way to be persuasive is to make the other person realize that it would be more advantageous for them to believe what you’re saying, rather than to believe it for sake of being logically consistent (most people, by the way, have no desire to be).
EXAMPLE – Person A is pro-choice, Person B is pro-life. Person A firmly believes that they hold the more rational argument, however Person B is incredibly religious.
WRONG
Person A: Women should be able to choose what they want for their own bodies, it’s wrong for any government to tell them what they should or shouldn’t be allowed to do.
Person B: It doesn’t matter, abortion is wrong, it’s killing! The Bible says that killing is wrong, God created you from the moment of conception!
Person A: So you think women shouldn’t be allowed to have sovereignty over their own body?
Person B: Not when it comes to killing a child!
Person A might be correct, and they might feel totally justified in their position, but Person B has no desire to talk about a woman’s rights. They’re focused on two things: what the bible says is right/wrong, and whether or not you’re going to allow someone to be involved in the act of killing.
A better approach to the topic would be this -
Person A: Women should be provided the choice for an abortion, should they desire one.
Person B: Abortion is wrong, it’s killing! The Bible says that killing is wrong, God created you from the moment of conception!
Person A: These children might end up in homes where their lives would be terrible, though. The parents who aren’t ready for the children could become incredibly abusive, maybe to the point to where they would kill a young child anyway. Even worse, the children themselves, raised in such conditions, might even grow up to become killers themselves.
Regardless of whether or not the person ends up agreeing with you, at least you’re trying to counter the points that they’re actually making. Person B clearly has no interest over body sovereignty or anything of the sort, so harping on about that point is a waste of both of your times.
Try to ask yourself “why is my person holding a position that I find so unreasonable?” If you can answer “why”, attack that “why” when you argue.
Good Article Mr. Bonnell.
A very good example between a rational argument vs an irrational argument happened in the discussion between Idra vs Day9 in the youtube video “IdrA vs Day9 – SOTG (State of the game).” Idra was trying to make a point while day9 kept refuting it.
That’s great advice. It’s definitely better to reason with someone using this method instead of going into an argument.
Destiny, keep doing what you’re doing, man. Whether you know it or not, there are viewers out there who appreciate you more than any other SC2 player out there simply for your level of intelligence and wisdom. Without you, CombatEX would be my favorite SC2 player.
Just because you have a platform now doesn’t mean you should use it. You’re turning into a narcissistic blowhard! Shut up!
Oh the rage… Destiny is just trying to share his thoughts. (which are very interesting IMO) Don’t be hatin’ so much man!
(Oh, Destiny! If you are reading this: Keep up the good work bro! GLHF!)
An excellent tip to those trying to argue or discuss some of the more heated issues of today. I think this tip, in conjunction with Life Tip #1 pretty much cover everything one needs to know to effectively argue and convey a point.
As always, great tip here Destiny!
EZPZBROHAN: It’s really funny that you saw that exchange as one where Idra was being rational.
I saw two people get into an argument today and it reminded me of how that could have been avoided if they were living by the advice given here. One of those two people is a friend of mine and I gave the advice to him. His next conversation with the person he had an argument with went much smoother.
can anybody say lame?
Thanks, this is great stuff.
This advice is great if you care more about winning an argument rather than actually being right. Destiny is completely right about logic not “winning” the arguments, but just because some stupid-ass doesn’t accept it doesn’t make you any less correct.
Often times, people enter a small mental crisis in their mind when they are shown that the outside world doesn’t match their assumptions or perceptions about it. Depending on the person, after the argument they will save pride or embarrassment by privately and silently changing their mind, or reinforcing their view incorrectly rationalizing their old point of view, which no longer has an arguing opponent. During the argument, if enough logical evidence disproves their point of view, they often change the argument or deflect responsibility for their point of view. (ex. Bush, instead of admitting being wrong about WMD’s, turned it into some kind of democracy quest)
So while Destiny’s advice is great for appearing to win the argument, I still stand by logic. Even if it costs me pride or victory, I will always abide by logic and demand the other to do so. Anyone intelligent enough to have an opinion worth caring about will probably feel like you “won” anyway. It’s definitely not okay, for me, to let people off the hook for being irrational, and then to stoop to their level.
Anyone more interested in this subject or Philosophy in general should pick the the book “Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts” by Carol Tavris & Elliot Aronson. It’s pretty easy to read, even if you don’t read much.
P.S. One of my favorite things about Destiny’s stream is when he gets philosophical and/or argues with people.
This article is very bad. Person A doesn’t actually counter Person B’s point. Person B stated that killing is wrong. Then Person A responds with speculation in the form of an absolute. Which in no way counter’s Person B’s argument. Person A claims to be more rational than Person B, but doesn’t actually have anything to back up his rationality other than speculation that doesn’t even affect the argument. Even if Person A’s hypothetical speculation was an absolute, it doesn’t disprove Person B’s point. If there exists no state worse than being aborted (death), then any possible speculation Person A can throw into the argument is meaningless.
Person A: Women should be able to choose what they want for their own bodies, it’s wrong for any government to tell them what they should or shouldn’t be allowed to do.
Person B: It doesn’t matter, abortion is wrong, it’s killing! The Bible says that killing is wrong, God created you from the moment of conception!
Both individuals have taken positions on a proposition, and provided their justification behind their position. So here is how it plays out. And both positions require certain presuppositions.
If God exists. And if whatever God says is correct. If God says killing in any form including abortion is wrong, then Person B’s position about abortion is correct.
If God does not exist, it still doesn’t make Person A correct. First of all, let’s not use the word “woman” because abortion is not a “woman’s” issue. It’s a human rights issue with regard to the carrier and the unborn entity. If the unborn entity isn’t human, then Person A is correct whether or not God exists.
If the unborn entity is human. If there is no God that says killing in any form is wrong. Then there needs to be reasoning on both sides with God out of the picture. Furthermore, if ethics don’t exist, then we can take it into a question of practicality. In other words, which is more practical? Freedom of human carrier to abort unborn human. Or no freedom of human carrier to abort unborn human.
Each position may provide their reasoning as to which is more practical, and to what end it is practical towards. If we keep ethics in the picture, and omit God, then each would have to provide their reasoning behind the ethics between a human carrier’s right to abort and unborn human’s right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. We can say that prohibiting abortion interferes with the carrier’s right to liberty. We can say that allowing abortion interfere’s with the unborn’s right to life.
All nonsensical speculation (petty rationalization) aside, I’d like to see what the real ethical or practical basis is for both sides of the argument. Regardless of your position, both sides require certain base presumptions for validation.
Presuming God exists. Presuming God’s word is law, and killing is wrong in any form. Presuming the unborn entity is a human. Then, Person B is correct. Presuming the unborn entity is not a human, then Person A is correct regardless of whether or not God exists. Presuming God doesn’t exist, and the unborn entity is human, then what are the justifications of either side based on? If you pinpoint where exactly where the reasoning of both sides diverge, then you can have a better examination of their argument.
Does it diverge in the question of Gods existence? Does it diverge in the question of whether or not the unborn entity is human? Lot’s more needs to be taken into account before saying “I’m rational. You’re not. You only think you’re rational. Case dismissed.” There is a difference between a discussion and an argument.
When one side deems themselves to be more rational without actually addressing points, then it becomes a totally one sided argument. When both sides in disagreement, can understand the views of the other, then there can be actual discussion regarding the basis of one another’s presuppositions.