Matters of Argument

Argument is a good method of resolving differing opinions. We also find that we are emotionally or personally, subjectively attached to a result, and we use argument to try to persuade others to our opinion.

Take for example the Presidential (sic) Debates occurring in the USA this month. The two debates are arguing. They are trying to express their best view of their preferences (ie that they, respectively, be voted by more people of the country to be the next president).

Bad or difficult or fraught debate is unattractive and unpersuasive. Was anyone persuaded by the first Presidential Debate?

There is a listening audience. They also might have opinions, one way or another, undecided or don't care, in regard to the matter being disputed/argued.

Sometimes there is no decision maker: the argument is between the decision makers - who are welded into a deadlock.

Sometimes that deadlock is broken by one party to a two party argument appearing to give up. They might not give up on their argument, they might just stop listening and imply to the other person that further argument is futile - they will not be persuaded.

What lessons for family and friends are there in regard to argument?

As I develop this argument (one sided, no contradictor), I see that amongst the spectrum of methods of pursuing debate and argument with a view to persuading another to one's point of view, there are generally 3 predominant styles.

First, there is the forceful 'I believe in this' style.

Second, there is the 'try this argument out, and if you are persuaded, I will be more in favour of it too'.

Third, there is the 'I see there are a number of view points, and I don't hold any one view as correct'.

Here is an example of the first style. There are benefits and detriments in the first style.

In the image above (which could be sheep, as it is, or goats - more likely, or ducks, and of course Presidents of the United States and other people) one sheep expresses a view with firmness, on the basis that it is correct, and other opinions are implicitly incorrect or wrong.

The sheep listening is not persuaded. He, she or it (GLBQTI), is of the 3rd variety, holding the view that there are likely to be a number of viewpoints, and being 'told' what to think is not persuasive. This hermaphrodite sheep prefers to stand aloof until and unless the argument becomes personal and has an immediate conclusive impact. For example "move out of the way, a bomb is about to go off". But if told that the pinko expremists in the Victorian Government are ruining the State by their incompetence, the 2nd sheep is unable to judge and just listens, storing away the pearls of 'wisdom' being delivered, to compare with other extreme opinions.

What is our lesson about the first style of argument?

As to the second style of argument, this is the 'long game argument'.

Using this method, the points of view or spectrum of potential answers to the question under consideration, are acknowledged, and engagement about the characteristics of the viewpoints, the pluses and minuses, the benefits and detriments, and pros and cons, and the impact on others (not just oneself) are reviewed, debated, and opinion may be swayed, changed, or consolidated.

What is the benefit of this type of argument? Are there any downsides to it? I have in mind that if it is a simple dipole decision (a choice of one or an alternative) then too much debate might make the issue bigger than it is. "Do we walk or take the car to the local shop?" Whilst, if the decision is "do we go to the West Coast or the East Coast" - more consideration is important. Likewise, "do we favour increased expenditure by government on home building or aged care" - deserves much more acknowledgement of alternatives.

The Third is represented by the non-arguer. Discussion is normally not about matters which require argument with this person. They either operate on a level of complicity and joint effort, or wax with the wind and join in agreement with whatever is being said at the moment. This is not wrong. It is a method. It has the benefit of avoiding confrontation (which, my argument is, is not essential to a good argument) but has the detriment of causing the party to find him/her/it to be compliant to another person's wishes - whether objectively beneficial or not.

I think we start from a proposition that individual human autonomy is a worthwhile aim, if not a substantive human right, if not in fact simply a reality of human existence - and giving up that autonomy to another or a government, agency or police state, endangers the individual and the relationship (again, whether of individuals or people viz a viz government etc).

What am I trying to say?

One often hears that it is 'all about respect' - respect for the individual, the other person, separate views, and reasonable endeavour. How does that work when the argument being advanced is not, in the mind of the listener, not worthy of respect? Well, I suppose it is worthy of respect if you are within listening distance of the person advancing the argument, and if you feel it is not an argument worthy of respect, then recognise that the person him/her/itself is still entitled to respect, and be willing to advance the alternative, or the fact that there are a myriad of views, and 'perhaps' that argument is not right, or the only correct view.

Finally, is it worth engaging and 'owning' responsibility for one side or another of a debate or argument which is about matters beyond one's control or about which one's opinion may have no impact whatsoever? Have we lost perspective of the relative importance we each have in the universe if we engage in argument about things over which we have no impact apart from to continue a dispute?

Is globalisation good? What about nuclear power? Should more be done to protect elephants in the Serengeti? Whilst (arguably) you may have influence on these things, have you ever in fact? What is the chance of a reversal of that? Are you going to work within or outside established power channels? Are you going to become civilly disobedient and be willing to be arrested? What duty of obedience to the nation state of which you are member do you have, in recognition of the gifts it and the rest of its people have conferred on you?

These, and other questions can be left for further argument.

The End.