You’re at the dinner table with your [insert political ideology here] family, and the discussion moves to a subject that you vehemently disagree on. Do you stay silent, hoping they won’t prod you for further discussion, risking the chance of a silent Christmas dinner, or do you speak up and make your voice heard? This is something that goes on in my daily life, and I think it’s important to give everyone the tools to win debates, and watch for tactics that can demonize you forever.
First, determine if you have an audience. If you do not, you can skip this entirely. If you do, the point now is not to debate your opposition, because they will be less likely to change their minds in front of spectators, but instead focus on convincing the observers of your argument, while tearing down your opposition (and look better doing it). Philosophers have been doing it for centuries. For example, consider body language; it can sway an observer’s opinion more than you would think. Audiences read into how you present yourself, be wary of hunching over the table with clenched hands or looking angry. Keep calm and have open hands, or at most casually use a chicken leg as a disarming prop.
Second, determine if your opposition is willing to debate in a gentle fashion. If you know your uncle is only going to commit ad hominem attacks until the cows come home, don’t bother engaging except under these conditions: you have an audience who will sympathize and you’re willing to frame your opponent as unreasonable before diving into the debate.
Frame the debate. Opponents will create nonsensical premises that are not about the arguments you make, but they will make you look like you’re on the defensive. If I was a Republican five years ago during the same-sex marriage debate, there would be a lot of framing to do. I would have to explain that, on the subject of same sex marriage, the question is not how same-sex marriage affects my marriage. The question is not whether two people who love each other should be given state sanction. The question is why marriage should be redefined, and how same-sex marriage will strengthen the institution.
And there I have reframed the debate to capture one’s arguments against institutionalized same-sex marriage. With this framing, I have still opened up the possibility of arguing that I am for same-sex marriage, but I am against the policies that permit a government to hand out licenses. I have also made my argument look more complex than the stereotypical “it’s icky.”
Do not get distracted. This involves making sure you’re not being led down some rabbit hole just to end up on the other side of the world, wondering how you started by arguing against redistribution of wealth, and ended up arguing whether or not Harry Truman was a war criminal for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is not as obvious as you may believe. Suppose I go to gun control as a Republican, and my opponent suddenly mentions that, because I am against ammunition purchasing limits, then I must be against Sudafed (cold medicine) purchasing limits, or else I would be a hypocrite. What the hell do these things have to do with each other? In any case, do not go down this rabbit hole, and the proper response to any sort of diversion from the main point requires a Rick Roll, because that’s how much relevance Sudafed has to gun regulation. If there is no necessary relationship, tell the opponent to move on.
You don’t have to defend people. Again, back to gun regulation as a Republican, I am against gun control, but Ronald Reagan was for an automatic weapons ban. So what? Reagan wasn’t a god, and he would have been the first person to admit it. You are an individual human being, and you have your own values and principles to follow. You don’t blindly follow people, you follow principle, and that’s what separates you from the lemmings falling over the cliff.
Admit when you don’t know something. This should be self-explanatory, but if you don’t follow this rule, you look like an ass when trying to bullshit your way through a complex topic. You don’t have to know everything, and your opponent is bound to know something you don’t.
Finally, let the other side have meaningless victories. I would call this telling them that they’re right sometimes, but it’s more complex than that. I present two scenarios, both with a Republican protagonist. First, you say “Bad people shouldn’t have guns.” Well, who are bad people? What is bad? Like a bad cold, or a bad day? The correct response, rather than to define the word bad, is to admit that the language is too vague, and use something else. In this case, I might use “irresponsible.” This is useful because it will make the other side feel like they are closer to victory without actually having won anything. In another event, someone engages me on immigration reform, and says they are for it. Great, I am for that too! Now, how do they define immigration reform? This is useful in a debate with an audience because it does not make you look like a naysayer right off the bat. In this case, immigration reform can mean anything, from building a wall and moat, complete with a drawbridge, or granting blanket amnesty.
Beyond these rules, you should always, and I mean ALWAYS, know your positions, the arguments, and how to support them with evidence and reason. After you have worked that out, get to know your opponent’s position better than your own. That way, nothing can surprise you, and you will always have a response ready. Now go out there, and make the holidays great again with your genius policies!
