I'm going to get all philosophical-able on you, a'right? About argumentation.

[Writer]

Today I got into an online spat with another poster about a particular topic. I won't get into details, but it took the typical turns of arguments on threads: a back and forth exchange involving passionate opinion and the periodic personal jab. It was all quite ridiculous, because the topic itself doesn't even fall into my "Top 100 Things I Really Give a Damn About" list, but the nature of the exchange sucked me in, and I am extremely human.

But I'm writing this because I experienced something rather odd: if you had asked me a few days ago about this topic I likely would have thrown my hands in the air and have said, "Who cares?" But the passion my co-argumentee displayed on the topic kept pushing the envelope. I felt myself grow more and more extreme on the topic, until something I really don't give much thought to (and really still don't) ended up defining me in a way that wasn't genuine. It was the argument, and not the topic, that encouraged my opinion.

A couple of years ago I performed a little focus group research on Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11." The question I asked was if the movie actually influenced voting behavior in the 2004 Presidential election. I did a pre-survey, showed the movie, then distributed a post-viewing survey. I then followed their opinions, controlling for media exposure, until Election Day. I discovered that not only did "F 9/11" not influence votes, but that a couple of people were actually turned off from caring about the election altogether because of the tone/nature of the documentary. Also, I had a couple of individuals not want to participate in the survey at all because they were Republican, so I was stuck with mainly Democrats and independents. That should say something right there.

Moore's film is an argument, which if one could sum it up, it would be "Here's all the shit Bush has done up until now, so why should we continue supporting this guy?" But that argument used the language of individuals already supporting his opinions in order to push his perspective. It was, indeed, an anti-Bush polemic that questioned the status quo of the time.

My friend the co-argumentee also wishes to challenge the status quo, but the more she pushed, the more resistant I became to her opinion. I think there is a lesson here about how one challenges the status quo. Is it effective to argue in a manner that eviscerates any alternative? That fails to see any shades of grey or of compromise? That sees fault only in other actions, but not in one's own? Strong argumentation, like that which we've witnessed over the last several years on talk radio and opinion television, does little to further democracy. It also exposes democracy to our natural irrationality.

So next time you argue, and this will include me, think about what you and the person with whom you're arguing have IN COMMON, instead of where you differ. You'll never be able to change the other person's minds, but you just might learn something.

The End.

On edit: Grammar whoring

[Radio_Lady]

1. Thanks, Writer. Very well thought through and it applies to "moi aussi" -- even recently.

Kicked and recommended.

[Shine]

2. Yup, you're absolutely right: it's all about finding Common Ground

it's the polarization and positional thinking that gets us into trouble, more often than not. People just want to be heard and respected, it's just that simple. The other challenge I see is that some people tend to internalize their opinions so much so that whenever the opinions are disagreed with, it's taken as a PERSONAL assault, which ends up instigating the attempt to defend themselves and BE RIGHT....no matter what. Everything escalates from there.

[Writer]

4. I took your post personally! Why oh why did I!

;) ;) ;)

:rofl:

[billyskank]

3. I think that is correct

It is quite possible to argue in such a way that it makes people want to disagree, even if you are right and they know it. To put it bluntly, if you argue like an asshole, you aren't going to convince many people, even if you are right.

You quite accurately described Michael Moore's film as a polemic - this is because it exists to make a point, rather than a proper documentary which would not have a conclusion in mind at the outset. However, if Moore intended to change minds with his film, the evidence of your survey indicates that he was not successful.

I think Moore really preaches to the choir. People who already agree with him tend to love what he does. People who he might be wanting to reach do not, so much.

To be honest, when I read this site, especially GD, I can't help but feel we are not going to win many hearts and minds either. We seem to hate the Freepers just as much as they hate us. But the point that is lost on many people is that Freepers are Americans too. One way or another, you guys are going to have to learn to live with each other. The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

[billyskank]

5. Not that I am saying you argued like an asshole!

I just reread my post, and realised it sounded like that. I didn't mean that at all!

[Writer]

6. You ____, how could you be so _____ ?

Everyone knows that _____ is true, so you must be foolish to believe ______. Why don't you go _____ in a vat of ______ety ______-_______!!!

;) :hi: ;)

LOL - didn't see anything personal in your post at all. I found in interesting!

[Writer]

7. By the way, what's up with you and bread?

I missed all the "excitement" from earlier.

[billyskank]

9. Oh that!

:blush:

I posted from work asking people to remind me that I needed to buy bread on the way home. I got totally Kleebed. :D

[Writer]

11. (snarf!)

I see! Don't let the Kleebers get to you, dear billyskank, a'right? :hi:

[LanternWaste]

8. That's a GREAT post!

That's a GREAT post!

I think that in the end, we all have a little bit of "winning is more important than being right" in our systems to one degree or another. It's this very same attitude that really frustrates me when I'm guilty of it myself and then don't allow myself to realize until later, if ever.

[Writer]

12. Yes, we've all been guilty of it from time to time.

We're all human. :)

[idgiehkt]

10. this is a great post.

I have never seen that movie. I am the only queerish person I know who has never seen Brokeback Mountain. I never see the stuff that is supposed to have made or be making a cultural impact. I don't know why I am this way.

I certainly understand the part about arguing harder about something you don't care about just based on resistance... for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, isn't that the #2 rule? Here when I feel myself getting pulled into arguments I cared little about to begin with I use the hide thread rule. I almost never argue about anything in real life anymore...it doesn't work for me much. but I argued for at least my whole first 35 or so years so I guess I'm done. Great dialog, thanks for posting this, we need more stuff like this in here everyday to talk about.

[Writer]

13. Hide thread: I need to remember that one... n/t

[Schema Thing]

14. It's why Wes Clark is such a brilliant leader, but I'll never be...

...much like him. I KNOW all this intellectually, but at my core, I am that freaky human who can change my mind by having the facts slammed into my head with a sledgehammer while being called an idiot, just as readily as I can change my mind by having someone soft-pedal and trying to appeal to my ego. It becomes really hard for me to switch gears.

I enjoyed your essay btw.

[pitohui]

15. logic question ?

you say You'll never be able to change the other person's minds

i submit that if you have never changed another person's mind through argument, persuasion, or whatever you like to call it, then it follows that you should not really be giving advice on the subject since you are proven to be unqualified in this area

another way to think of it--

if your thesis is that minds are never changed through argument, spirited discussion, etcetera, then it follows that it doesn't much matter how you argue but rather whether you are entertained -- and i would suggest that following the cliched advice to focus on what you have in common to be a waste of time because it's ... tah dah... boring

i personally dispute your idea that minds are never changed through debate, certainly i have changed my mind in course of debate, certainly i have changed other minds, and i sure wouldn't put myself up there with the captain of the debate team or anything