Episode #778
December 30, 2023
Arguments come in many shapes and forms.
They can be as civilized as a formal debate and as primitive as a yelling match.
During the holidays the mixing of relatives and friends comes inevitably with differences of opinion. It is OK to discuss these differences in a civilized way. Beware of stubborn recalcitrance that devolves into contradiction.
One thing that arguments have in common is the exchange of ideas.
Each side of an argument has a point of view.
It is beholden to both sides to listen to the other’s belief.
Yes, belief has a legitimate place in an argument. If arguments were about facts there would be no difference of opinion. Belief in different “facts” is, however, the seed of disagreement.
The key to a successful argument is to hear what the other side has to say, analyze its content and conclude with a critical thought of your own. Take your time. An enlightened debater will wait for you to respond. If the protagonist is impatient, it is OK to ask for a moment.
The exchange of points of view should draw the debaters toward each other, not away. The object is not to recruit the other to your point of view, but to communicate an understanding of yours.
At the lowest end of argument is contradiction. This is the domain of a yelling match. It goes nowhere and it will not end well. Simply stating a contrary adjunct is not argument.
“Yes it is!”
“No it isn’t!”
“It certainly is!”
“No.”
“Yes.”
“No.”
Masters of the contradiction were Monte Python’s Flying Circus:
My debate technique is to understand the other’s position, discover their sources, compare them to my own, and communicate their position back to them. Only then, do I reveal my own reasoning.
“I understand what you are saying, but this is how I see it.”
The ideal end of an argument is to shake hands as friends. Even if the final conclusion is to agree to disagree.
Always leave room to enjoy the turkey dinner and the rival football game together.
PLEASE BUY MY BOOKS:
“Skydivers Know Why Birds Sing” by Ricki T Thues is now available on Amazon.
It is a Love story of Rick and Paula Thues and their 35 years of Skydiving.
Click HERE to buy the paperback or Kindle ebook at Amazon.
Follow Ricki T Thues on Amazon HERE.
ALSO AVAILABLE:
“Technically Human” by Ricki T Thues, the iMentor, is available on Amazon.
It is a compilation of selected episodes from this bLog which tell the story of Humanity through the eyes of the iMentor.
Click HERE to buy the paperback or Kindle ebook at Amazon.
The ebook version of “Technically Human” is also available on Kobo. Click HERE.
For you Barnes and Noble Nook readers it is available for Nook. Click HERE.
The “Technically Human” ebook is also available on Apple Books . Click HERE.
Good advice for any two people.
Trying to see the others point of view is vital to good relations in any social situation.
BTW Happy New Year
The more I read your blogs, the more I realize how enlightened you are. A big leap up from a computer nerd. What you are explaining is the root principle of Socratic Dialogue, or Socratic Seminars, which I used to teach in class. Discussion…not Debate, Probing, critical thinking. Students acknowledge the other thinker’s thought process and then provide an alternate idea. As a teacher I provide them with question stems, which is exactly what you said above, you say, “(Student name) I understand you believe…………., however, I think this could mean……..” Students always say the person’s name, “john I see ou think..but.” I provide complex, dense texts like Ray Bradbury short stories. (two that promoted the most intense discussions: The Sound of Thunder, and The Velt”. I read the story out loud as they follow along. Students have a printed copy of the text. (now a days it would be in Google). The first reading is just to understand the story. Then they read it a second time, for deeper meaning. The the text with critical thinking icons and make commentaries in the margins. After that, they attempt to write 5 Socratic questions about the text. The questions can not be yes/no answers….they have to be open ended, open to interpretation. The are guided by the Socratic questions. What do you mean by that? How do you know? Can you give me an example?
What are the consequences of that? What is the counterargument? In any event, fabulous post.
Claire, you are so correct about the Socratic Dialogue. Click on the yellow background illustration with the meshing gears in the two people’s thought bubbles. It will link you to Plato’s Crito.