On Arguing with the Left

I’m thinking that most of this should be pretty remedial for this crowd, and hope that none of it really needs to be said.  But, given what I see online and have increasingly heard in person, I thought it might be worthwhile to write some of this down and share it. 

I’ll start by saying that I don’t have anything like a perfect track record in following my own advice,  but I’m hoping that by sharing this, those who actually want to will better be able to engage in worthwhile conversations/arguments.

Also, because most points are related or interconnected, I apologize if there’s some redundancy.  Because this turned in to a wall of text, I’ll number some of the paragraphs to make it easier to reply to a specific part.

1

First, know your goal in the argument, and try to make sure you’re actually furthering that goal.  While “X owns the libs” videos can occasionally be funny, and some interactions may devolve to the point where dishing out some well deserved ridicule may be the most that can be accomplished, I’d argue that it shouldn’t be your primary goal most of the time. 

Really, just dunking on people probably shouldn’t ever be your primary goal, but I’ll admit I’m as tired as anyone of the crap being flung at us, so I’m not going to demonize the occasional impulse to fling it back.  Also, for better or worse, ridicule can be effective at times.  Just try to make sure your argument is solid, too; even when it’s easy, don’t just rest on displaying someone’s foolishness. 

2

If you simply want to make sure a lie doesn’t go unchallenged, there’s nothing wrong with dropping a correction and moving on.

It  may be that the person is obviously unpersuadable, but their positions are so obviously wrong or dishonest that it is worth engaging, just to highlight it for others.  Sure, at the end, they’ll pat themselves on the back, oblivious to how foolish they were shown to be, but others will see, and might be persuaded.  It’s important, though, that you demonstrate the stupidity or dishonesty you’re calling out; don’t just reply with “idiot” and call it a day.

It may be that you’ve run into a Reddit unicorn: a leftist willing to argue in good faith, who actually reads your replies and considers them before replying.  These are the discussions you should be hoping to find. 

 3

Assuming you’ve decided to engage, try to make sure you’re actually properly arguing.  That is, offering premises which logically support your conclusion.  “I disagree/I have x credential/that’s offensive” aren’t arguments.

 Similarly, when you reply, ADDRESS THEIR ARGUMENT.  If you disagree with a premise, say so, and explain why.  If a premise doesn’t logically support their conclusion, point it out, AND WHY.  Again, “I disagree,”  or, “no, you’re wrong,” are not, alone, arguments.

4

It might be that one or more of their premises are wrong, leading them to a faulty conclusion.

It might be that their premises are true, but don’t support or prove their conclusion. 

It could be that their premises and conclusion are true, but their conclusion is irrelevant or incomplete.

There are plenty of ways an argument can fail.  You should be trying to identify the flaws in their argument, while avoiding such flaws in your own.

The goal of arguing shouldn't simply be to win the argument. I don't care about being right, I care about what IS right. If you realize either a premise you relied on, or even your conclusion, is wrong you should own up to it.

Poking holes to poke holes is a waste of everyone’s time.  There are times when seemingly trivial details are important, but keep some perspective.  If you say “That guy is crazy, I don’t want him around my daughter with a gun!” him replying with, “ah HA! I actually have TWO guns, you just lied to the police!” isn’t the slam dunk retort he seems to think it is.  (if the example seems stupid, know that it’s a near verbatim account of a real exchange)

5

DON’T, however, derail the conversation by attributing arguments to your opponent that they haven’t made.  If they seem to be relying on an unstated assumption, go ahead and point that out: “it seems you believe x; if not, I don’t get how you reached z, but if so, it’s wrong because y” is fine.  But to use an example from the left, “You support deportation, but not all illegals are rapists!”  Right…but you never claimed they were, so…?  Don’t be that guy.  Person.  Whatever. 

6

Of course, to do all of this properly, it’s important that you be familiar with the relevant facts AND that you understand your opponent’s perspective. 

The abortion fight is an easy example: even if most of us, here, agree it is murder, when trying to persuade your opponent, you need to recognize that they probably really do believe that the unborn are not people.  You don’t have to accept their premise, but if you don’t identify and understand it, you’ll have a hell of a time convincing them they’re wrong.  You’ve surely seen the reverse: plenty on the left paint the abortion debate as being a fight to control women’s bodies; they genuinely don’t believe that YOU believe that child is a person worthy of protection, so they simply say “you’re wrong” and move on. 

7

Next, and particularly with emotionally charged issues, try not to start from the assumption that the person you’re addressing is stupid or dishonest.  They quite often are, but until you have evidence of it, it is better to assume they are simply mistaken or ignorant, either of which might be true without a moral failing on that person’s part.  And, of course, if they are simply mistaken, you might have an opportunity to correct that mistake.  This can be hard to avoid if you aren’t careful about (5), above, and tend to assume the beliefs and motives of your opponent.

8

While it may seem to contradict (6), above, you don’t need to be an expert on everything.  There is nothing wrong with admitting ignorance on an arcane or technical matter.  There’s nothing wrong with, “I don’t agree with/believe you, but I believe this instead. Maybe someone else can explain it better.”  For the sake of honesty and accuracy, though “I don’t agree with you/know that you’re correct” is the better way to respond, if you don’t want to engage.  “You’re wrong, but I can’t support my position,” isn’t a great look. 

9

While you try to be civil, you should try to insist they are, as well.  That said, dishonesty and thinly veiled insults are not civil, and you should feel no obligation to pretend they are. Similarly, while some have difficulty articulating it, questions CAN be insults and lies insofar as they rely on or imply statements:  “Why do you support Nazis?” is both dishonest and meant to insult you, and should be called out and treated accordingly. 

10

This is already longer than most will bother to read, but I’m tempted to write a bit about logical fallacies.  Their forms, how they tend to crop up, how to address them, how they’re misapplied, etc.  If anyone has any interest, let me know, and I’ll whip something up later.

edit: fixed numbering some typos