How to Argue

Other viewpoints, facts, and truth are often upsetting, especially when they repudiate a narrative that you believe and feel strongly about. The hallmark of a maturing person is the ability to hear other viewpoints and consider them thoughtfully even if you disagree with them. It's not only a Biblical proverb, but it's also key component of the scientific method.

If you're emotionally attached to a hypothesis that can be proven incorrect by experiment you will find it harder to consider or embrace a different hypothesis. Knowledge and understanding are gained by being able to accept a new hypothesis that better fits the evidence.

Disagreement and argument are fundamental to exploring and understanding truth and are legally protected rights in many countries. Calling people names ("racist!") is the lowest level of the hierarchy of disagreement (from the essay by Paul Graham about "How to Disagree"). It's childish; something that thoughtful, self-correcting, disciplined people grow out of as they mature. Unfortunately, it's a common mode of argument in the media today.

Pro tips for having a disagreement without being disagreeable

You could try a Monty Python Argument Clinic or these suggestions:

1. Ask the other person why he thinks the way he does and listen to understand, not to criticize and formulate an attack. Be precise and neutral. Start with easy questions and refine for clarity.

• "Why do you think the police are racist?"
• "I didn't mean 'why are they racist?' I meant what makes you think they are."
• "Do you think all police are racist or a lot or just a few?"
• "What do you think is the solution?"
• "Is that practical? Are there other solutions that might also work?"

2. Affirm his reasons for thinking that way. You don't have to agree with the point to validate him for having that point of view.

• "I can see why that makes sense"
• "I understand why you feel strongly about that now"
• "If I were in that position I'd feel angry too"

3. Ask if he's interested in hearing more information about the subject, or your viewpoint.

• "I've thought about this too. Do you want to hear?"
• "Do you know what some of the other arguments are? Are you interested?"
• "I read a different view that makes sense to me. Would you like to hear it?"

If he's not interested in hearing counterarguments, your discussion is over. The aphorism "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" applies. He's not willing to be persuaded and you won't be able to convince him. Move on to something else.

If he is willing to listen it will lead to a counter-argument. Respond to it as described above: ask, listen, affirm, offer to explain your point of view.

The more neutrally you question and the more you listen thoughtfully, the more likely you can maintain a conversation with a low emotional response. This is important because if it becomes emotionally charged your amygdala takes over and you retreat into an adrenaline-fueled binary fight-or-flight mode that short-circuits your brain's ability to reason complex or nuanced arguments. It's often called an amygdala hijack.

If you know the other person holds a viewpoint that is objectively false, the best way to persuade him is to let him figure it out himself with neutral, probing questions that may inspire him to reflect carefully about why he has come to that point of view. If it's obvious where the misunderstanding is, the other person will arrive at it from just asking questions. Keeping emotions calm is crucial for your brain to be able to consider new information and process it.

The U.S. President's Job

"American Presidents Standing Side by Side!"
by Maggie Pagel, National Liberty Museum

This is a summary of the job of the President of the United States according to the powers granted in the Constitution. The next time you hear a presidential candidate making grandiose promises about what he will do when elected, remember this is what he actually can do, which is pretty limited. Power granted by the people to the Congress, President, and courts were limited for a good reason.

1. Faithfully execute all the laws passed by Congress.
2. Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
3. Commander in Chief of the armed forces
4. Create treaties with other countries. Treaties aren't valid until approved by two thirds of the Senate. For example, the Paris Agreement on climate change signed by President Obama was not a valid treaty since it wasn't approved by the Senate and doesn't have the force of law. It's simply a non-binding gesture.
5. Appoint ambassadors to foreign countries, heads of agency departments, and judges to federal courts and the Supreme Court, with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. If the Senate is in recess, he can fill those vacancies without the consent of the Senate but they automatically expire at the end of the next Senate session.
6. Report the state of the union to Congress and make recommendations that he considers necessary and expedient for the country.
7. Commission officers of the United States. In practice this has meant the commanding officers of the military who all report directly to him.

The framework of U.S. Constitutional government rests on the founding premise that government derives its right to govern from the consent of the people and its primary purpose is to secure innate natural rights that every human being is born with. This radically liberal idea was exactly contrary to the thought of leaders around the world who believed that people were the subjects of governing elites and the rights of citizens were granted by the government. As Nigel Farage points out, among the leaders of most democratic governments today that ancient and corrupt idea is still very popular.

See also:

• Constitution of the United States of America, Article II
• Article Two of the United States Constitution (Wikipedia)
• The Powers Delegated to the Federal Government Are Few and Defined (Roots of Liberty)