The Simplicity of Debate

This is a compilation of a series of articles I will be writing on the subject of debate methodology and its application to normal, everyday discussion. The focus will not be on just copy-pasting the same dry, esoteric data you would find in a wikipedia article, but rather in presenting that knowledge in a format that could be easily understood by the layman. The purpose of debate is not to be the BEST at doing it; the purpose is to get to the truth. To present your ideas honestly, and to try to critically analyse both positions in an intelligent way. What I am trying to do with this series is to present people with the tools to do that, and a simple explanation of why and how they are useful.

Techniques

Beyond knowing what the correct argument names and fallacy titles are, there is a more important aspect to debate; technique. There are many different techniques harkening from methodologies scientific and philosophical. Personally, I like to utilize a combination of empiricism, the Socratic method, and strict syllogistic logic as my debate technique, though everyone has their own flair and approach.

As part of this article series I will be spotlighting other techniques, both good and bad, and explaining why they should or should not be used, and how to effectively counter them. Remember that the most important technique of all is making every effort to be reasonable. There is nothing to gain from being evasive. If you’re in the right, no amount of honest answers to honest questions can make you be wrong.


Technique spotlight #1 Syllogistic logic

The most basic and general technique is the use of syllogistic logic. Don’t be put off by the fancy word; it’s actually really simple and easy to learn. A syllogism is kind of verbal formula that enables you to reach conclusions in a strictly logical manner. It doesn’t require a ton of memorization or skill in mathematics. It usually consists of two or more premises and a conclusion, and the argument has to be structured such that the conclusion naturally follows from the premises.

Premise 1: All men are mortals

Premise 2: Churchill was a man

Conclusion: Churchill was a mortal

This syllogism makes sense, as you can see. It’s a series of statements where, if you accept the first two, you absolutely cannot deny the third one. Just like 2+2=4. It might sound complex when other people talk about syllogistic forms, but the reality is, breaking things down to an equation like this actually makes it a lot easier to be highly logical. If you had just tried to argue that Churchill was mortal, it would be a much more complicated discussion, but if you can get everyone to agree that all men are mortal, the argument proves itself.

All syllogistic argument forms follow this basic template. Fallacies are identified chiefly by their deviation from that logic. Any time a fallacy is in play, there is some reason why one of the premises did not lead to the conclusion. The only way to reasonably counter a syllogistic argument is to participate in the syllogism and demonstrate where, if ever, it goes awry. Thankfully the nature of syllogistic logic makes this really easy to do.

An argument can be both valid and sound. Soundness pertains to the truth of the argument, whereas validity merely refers to whether it makes sense. Meaning that in a valid argument, it’s true that IF you concede the premises, then the conclusion naturally follows, irrespective of whether or not the premises are actually true. In this context, it doesn’t matter what is objectively true, we are just talking about whether it follows logically. For instance:

Premise 1: All men have wings

Premise 2: Churchill was a man

Conclusion: Churchill had wings.

In this case the argument was valid, because IF all men have wings, then Churchill must have wings too, but it isn’t sound, because the premises cannot be demonstrated to be correct. This argument is strictly hypothetical, and under that hypothetical scenario, the conclusion would be accurate. Actually, both arguments were, but that gets into negative claims and burden of proof, which I will be covering later.

Being able to justify the premises is a large part of debate, and this is what is referred to as empiricism. A more scientific approach to the same thing. Under the empirical model, I need to be able to EXPERIENCE the truth of your claim, ideally to be able to test it, before I can concede to your conclusion. Sometimes this truth is evidentiary, for instance historical documentation, scientific studies, etc. Other times the evidence can be tautological, which means that by definition it must be true, such as “all men are men” or “all bachelors are unmarried”.

If one objects to a premise, they must also be able to logically refute it. If they don’t, they must, by virtue of the nature of logic, concede the argument. So, you see, having a valid argument isn’t always the end of the discussion. If you’re dealing with verifiable claims about reality, you still need to be able to prove your case when challenged. And if you’re at the other end of a syllogism, you have to be willing to actually hear that proof.

Knowing how to arrange that evidence into a syllogistic form will make both your argument; and your ability to rationally defend it much stronger. It also enables you to be more easily corrected when your “math” doesn’t add up, and being able to find out when you’re wrong is one of the most important aspects of any debate. Unfortunately, you can’t make anyone else accept that they are wrong, even when they are.

You can’t make someone accept your premises, no matter how harmless or obvious they may be. In fact, when people start to see where the argument is going, in my experience, they tend to want to derail the syllogism by just flatly ignoring what you’re saying or rejecting premises that are easily justifiable. You can’t make them listen, but you can clearly set up the formula such that if they refuse to play ball, they expose their own unreasonableness.

The bottom line is: people who are in the right don’t fear syllogisms. Why would you? Why would you fear something that breaks the debate down into something simpler, easier to understand, and turns it into a situation where only the correct answer can be concluded? The more confident that you are in your overall argument, the more you should be ecstatic to use such a convenient tool for demonstrating this. Nothing untrue can come from a syllogism that follows logical, non-fallacious structure with justified premises. Nothing. And if there are fallacies and weaknesses, the syllogism makes it EASIER to point it out.

Only the wilfully ignorant, the wrong, and the weak fear them. Don’t be on that list.

What matters most is that YOU honestly adhere to this method. Make every effort to be reasonable, accommodating, patient, and to give every premise a fair chance. When someone else gives up on the debate, just let them go and find someone more willing to be honest. So long as you followed good logical structure, you know you were in the right.

It’s worth remembering that you can’t practise this technique too much. It is immensely useful. Give it a try! Take your favourite debate topic, and try to arrange it into a series of “if, then” statements. “If” your premises naturally lead to your conclusion, and “if” your premises are supported with evidence? “Then” you know that your argument is logical. And you can be sure I’m right, because I just did it! It’s that easy.

                                                                                                                                                                 

Fallacies

One of the most important tools of debate is the understanding of fallacies, and to that end I will be spotlighting several of the most common ones in the following articles. The first thing you need to understand about fallacies is that they are merely an argument that does not make sense. This doesn’t mean the user’s stance on the topic is wrong or right, it simply means they used a very bad argument for demonstrating it. For instance, if I say I like bacon, and you ask me to prove it, if I were to say “Gordon Ramsey likes bacon so it must be good”, I haven’t proved MY case, I proved an entirely different one. This has no bearing on whether I do like bacon.

Not everyone can be an expert on all fallacies or argument types, and it can be problematic sometimes when someone is trying to honestly convey their views, and rather than having it explained to them why they may be wrong, people just sling obscure fallacy names at them that mean nothing to that person. It can be used as a tool to intimidate, overwhelm, or shame, when the truth is there is nothing wrong with not being well-versed in the entire field of formal debate and syllogistic argument, just so long as you are willing to be reasonable. Trust me; I’m the loser who spends all his time studying this stuff. It doesn’t reflect negatively on you if you’re not as sad as me.

Other times, people attempt to imitate those who do this by trying to invoke fallacies without fully understanding what they mean, and sometimes just see the fallacy name itself as a shut-down on the conversation. For instance, Appeal to Authority. Yes, this is a fallacy, but that doesn’t mean any time someone cites an authority they are being fallacious. It’s only a fallacy if the authority cannot be demonstrated as valid. There is a lot more to fallacies than just their names, and that’s one of the most important things to learn about them. Appeal to Ignorance doesn’t mean you’re ignorant, Slippery Slope isn’t just ANY slippery slope-type argument, but only those where the conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow.

But I don’t want to overwhelm you with too much information in the first article, so here’s the most important thing I want you to take away from this. Before the argument structures and the fallacies and all that jazz, there is one most important aspect to any debate. A skill that, if you can master it? Means you don’t NEED any of that other stuff. And that is being willing to really listen, and ensure that what you, or anyone else is saying, truly makes sense. It doesn’t matter if you know what the correct fallacy name is for a flawed argument – if you can see that it is flawed, simply explain the flaw to them. If someone explains a flaw in your argument? Be willing to hear them out.

If something doesn’t make sense to you, ask for clarification. Ask forty times if necessary. Keep asking until you understand, because that’s the point. Keep giving honest, direct answers when others ask you questions. If your goal is to get to the truth, whatever it may be, there is no trap someone could set for you that would tarnish that truth – because it is what it is, and isn’t what it isn’t. If you don’t have the necessary data to support your position? That’s okay. You can take a break and go gather it. So long as you are always willing to be open to the possibility that you are wrong, and willing to hear out what other people say, eventually the truth will out. And nobody honest ever had anything to fear from the truth.

Debate is ultimately a form of communication. If we aren’t willing to communicate, there is no point in trying to debate. Seek a point of mutual understanding, and the rest will generally sort itself out.

What follows is the first fallacy spotlight in this series:

Fallacy Spotlight #1: Strawman

This is probably one of the most basic and commonly understood logical fallacies in all of debate, so it is highly likely that most of the people reading this will have some understanding of how it works. That said; this is the kind of thing that anyone can easily fall prey to, so it really doesn’t hurt to give yourself the occasional refresher, and keep it in the back of your mind as you debate.

The strawman is, in simplest terms, a misrepresentation of the opponent’s argument. So, if I say I like red, and you say “so you don’t like blue?” that’s a strawman. Even if it SEEMS implied, if it hasn’t been stated, then it is not the point being debated, and bringing it up is an irrelevancy. It can be the smallest alteration you make, but so long as it either reframes your opponent’s argument or seems to unfairly characterize them, it’s a strawman. The term comes from the idea of actually constructing a straw effigy of an enemy, one easier to defeat than fighting the real version.

In politics, there is one topic in particular that is, by design, rigged up as a perpetual, unilateral strawman right from the start. Abortion. Consider how the two sides of this argument are characterised? “Pro-life” or “Pro-choice”. Granted, this isn’t the form that a strawman argument NORMALLY takes. Normally you would say that someone else is X, rather than say that you are Y, but the way it sets up the debate is it forces the opponent into the position of being anti-Y.

Everyone is pro-choice, and everyone is pro-life. These are two of the most emotionally charged, positively-themed words in the English language. Invoking the elementally human concepts of freedom, and not being dead. My pointing this out isn’t meant to imply that there are no good arguments on either side, because of course there are. The point is; we try to paint each other in the worst colours before the debate can even begin, and that’s classically symptomatic of the way strawmanning is employed across all of debates. In the example I just used, it can also be considered "poisoning the well", which is a fallacy where you try to set someone up to look bad before they even say anything.

We have to be mindful of the way we represent each other. If someone explains their position to you, and you reply with “so you’re saying ___” if what follows is ANYTHING other than exactly what they said? You’ve already failed at the fundamental first step of communication. You shouldn’t need to tell someone else what they are saying at all. If they have just told you, all you need to do is respond to it. Repeating it exactly is redundant, and repeating it inexactly is just a recipe for misrepresentation, whether deliberate or not.

Try to remember that everyone thinks they are in the right, and pretty much everyone thinks they are reasonable. There are no villains twirling their moustaches trying to be in the wrong. If someone believes something you can’t even begin to rationalize, either you know something they don’t, they know something you don't, or you don’t actually understand what they believe. The worst thing you can do is tell someone else what their position is. If you think something seems odd, ask.

You wouldn’t like someone to beat up a scarecrow with your face painted on it and declare they defeated you in a fight. So don’t do the same to them. If you have to change what someone says in order to find a flaw in it, that’s because you can’t find a flaw in what they ACTUALLY said. And in that situation, the most intellectually honest thing to do is re-evaluate your own opinion of them. We shouldn’t be looking for ways to rig the fight so everyone who disagrees with us looks terrible. We should be looking for ways to figure out whose positions are the most reasonable. Taking the time to truly and honestly understand your opposition is not only the most respectful thing you can do – but it’s also the best way to get an equally fair and honest response.

Intellectual honesty has the highest return on investment. If you are always honest, then you either get proved wrong, and learn something new, or get proved right, and educate someone else. There is no defeat if your goal is to get to the truth.

Fallacy Spotlight #2: Tu Quoque or not Tu Quoeue?

Since this fallacy keeps coming up a lot at the moment, I thought it would be a good idea to do the next spotlight on “Tu Quoque”. Anything with a Latin name tends to scare people, but this isn’t some obscure elitist thing you need special training to understand. It literally means “you also”, and it refers to situations where people respond to an argument by pointing out some kind of hypocrisy in the person or side who made it. Think children arguing in a school yard going “nahuh, you are!”

This happens a LOT in politics – in fact, it’s become such a common pastime it’s developed its own political spinoff, “whataboutism”. What happens every time someone criticizes Trump? “What about Obama?” What happens when you criticise Obama? “What about Bush”, and so on and so on. Instead of addressing the criticism of the individual that has been offered, people have started just pointing out that some other individual on the opposite “team” has also done something similar.

This is especially problematic because there aren’t just two “teams” in politics, and it is disingenuous to act as if any individual is representative of a whole. We spent years hashing this out with respect to race, religion and gender, now we’ve just jumped to politics instead. Criticising something a Democrat does, doesn’t make you a “Republican”, nor does it clarify what KIND of Republican you may be, nor does it mean that you are in favour of Republicans doing the same thing that this Democrat did to earn your critique. Likewise if the roles are reversed. Why WOULD it mean any of that?

If I say to you, “I hate ice cream because it’s too cold”, you wouldn’t reply with “yeah, but winter is cold too!” You would look like a crazy person. First of all, for defending an accusation against ice cream by deflecting to talking about something utterly unrelated. Secondly, for apparently assuming I’m being hypocritical because I must love winter, when I never said I did, and third, because… seriously, just… who talks like that? It doesn’t make SENSE. It sounds so achingly insecure and whiny, it really is just the childhood “but mooom, he started it!” It doesn’t even address the criticism being made – which may not even MERIT addressing. Why does an accusation have to be defended just because you claim the team that perpetrated it?

Whataboutism is, as I said, kind of an off-shoot. Generally speaking Tu qupque is just pointing out that someone supposedly is acting hypocritical to their point. Before modern politics turned into a thunderdome, this fallacy didn’t use to come up all that much, because even the most irrational people tend to be capable of recognizing immediately how dumb it looks. It only tends to happen in situations where there are only two possible sides to an issue, so attacking one implicitly means you side with the other, even though almost nothing is really that black and white.

However, pointing out hypocrisy isn’t ALWAYS a fallacy, and that’s an important distinction to keep in mind. If you say to me “meat is bad for you” while eating a hamburger, I can’t use the fact that you’re eating it as a weakness in your argument. No one said that believing meat is bad for you means you WON’T eat it, so it doesn’t address the argument (which is JUST that meat is bad for you) for me to point this out. You may not be acting consistently with your own viewpoint, but that doesn’t make your argument wrong. This makes tu quoque an “ad hominem” fallacy, where you attack the person making the argument, rather than the argument.

If, however, you were to say “no reasonable person can eat meat because it’s bad for you”, then my pointing out the fact that you’re eating meat DOES refute your argument. Or at least it demonstrates that by your own criteria, you are not reasonable. If someone concedes to being unreasonable, even if they did it by defining themselves into a corner – they can NO LONGER participate in a debate until resolving that contradiction. Debate is based entirely around people being receptive to reason. This is still an ad hominem attack, but not an ad hominem fallacy, because it is not logically fallacious when you have made character part of the equation.

Personally, I’ve never understood whataboutism. I’ve never felt the need to employ it. If I see someone doing something worthy of criticism, my first instinct is not to analyse the person doing it, see whether or not they are on my “team” and how best to work this into my political agenda, and then contrive a response that either shames or saves face depending on that person’s position relative to mine. This “soccer team” mentality, where we defend our heroes and condemn our enemies no matter what, is nothing more than a pollutant to the process of debate.

That would be so dishonest, it literally wouldn’t even occur to me. And yet I see people doing this all over the political spectrum every single day, and that seriously concerns me. If I see someone doing something wrong – I JUST condemn it, regardless of who did it. I don’t point out that someone else did it, I don’t try to defend it. I condemn it. Because that’s the right thing to do. Because something doesn’t become less wrong just because it’s “my” guy who did it, or because it has been done before by worse people. The intellectually honest thing is to act blind to all of that and judge the situation by its merits alone.

In my opinion, if your instinct is to do anything other than that – you need to recalibrate your sense of reason and learn to put your own agenda BEHIND a wall of intellectual honesty. Nobody is right about everything all the time, so if your instinct to protect your case is in any way a higher priority than your ability to reason, you are putting yourself in the worst position possible. The position of being wilfully ignorant.

If we were all more willing to condemn, without excuses or deflections, that which can be demonstrated to be wrong, then we will all be holding each other to higher standards. And by holding EVERYONE to those standards, surely people would be less inclined to do wrong in the first place. Wouldn’t that make your “side” a side that is actually WORTH standing by?