Growing Inability to Debate is a Handicap for Those With Truth On Their Side [View all]

[Apollo Zeus]

We call people who disagree with us names -- "Stupid" "Putin puppet" "Sex/race/age-ist" "deplorable" -- but does name-calling flip voters or does it harden their position?

We dismiss news we don't like as "biased" "fake" or "Russian bots" when it would be more effective to respond with truth.

The most common tactics in American debates are now:

1) the Ad Hominem attack -- a logical fallacy which posits that 'X cannot be true because it was said by Y, a known-liar' and

2) the Ad Nauseam defense -- a logical fallacy which insists that 'X must be true because we keep saying it over and over'

3) sarcasm -- which tells us only what you DON'T think is true but not what you do think

Far more effective is using the truth + valid logic + lack of personal attacks. Bonus points for anyone who can attribute this famous piece of political advice:

"Every time they attack you it gives you another chance to get your message out."

Meaning the truth wins. Dunning-Kruger is a real effect and in-person saying things louder and more emphatically than one's opponent(s) can create the perception that the speaker is more confident and therefore correct but in the long run and online the truth is a better weapon because it endures and because it leads away from emotion-laden facts-be-damned arguments into a real debate where the truth can win.

There is a time tested technique for persuasion -- Listen to your opponent/prospect and then speak back to them using the words and phrases they used + truth. Give them the space and opportunity to come to your side without shaming them for past positions.