Intellectual self-defence: How to disagree respectfully and debate properly

In this article, I will explain the mindset, ethos, and techniques for properly managing debates and conflict with others. Too many conflicts involve nuanced responsibility by each party, but with each convinced that they are in the right and are a victim of the others. One of my greatest passions is educating on these pitfalls so as to counteract them, and ultimately become wiser, more critically-thinking, and more compassionate and constructive in our relations. Let us first explain the basis of a formal debate.

Winning arguments may often be a survival necessity, but there is a problem with the acceptance of a debate as a conflict in which each party attempts to win: it assumes that one party is correct, which is fallacious when all are certain that it is them! Often, nobody has established the objective truth of the subject. Our processing of information is biased and limited in ways, influenced by experiences, emotional tendencies, and mental shortcuts, that lead us to misinterpret a belief as the truth, when in reality it does not account for all the information relevant and may be misguided. Often, disagreement also feels threatening. Evolution may explain this. To survive, we must decide quickly how to interact with the world. To save mental effort, we assume that anything unfamiliar is threatening, and so when challenged, we become defensive to protect ourselves and avoid the discomfort of having to take responsibility for potentially being wrong. Other people interpret this defensiveness as aggression, which physiologically arouses them. Each person mirrors this arousal so that it reciprocally perpetuates, causing a psychological bias in which everyone's minds will have difficulty recognising the favourable aspects of the situation and focus only on the negative aspects, in turn stimulating more agitated reactions. People often have a valid basis for disagreement, but the interactions become destructive when emotions become dysregulated. In fact, a proper debate involves exchanging and analysing ideas so that each party clarifies facts and issues, identifies knowledge which they lack, and progresses to understanding the truth. Truth is a virtue in itself but is a matter more complex than we are often taught to recognise, hence each party must enter assuming that they may be wrong and be willing to question themselves. While fluid, there are structural properties of a debate.

Each party must agree on the issues being debated. Often, at least one party introduces arguments which appear to be relevant, but are not. At best, these are judgement errors. At worst, they are "straw man" arguments, which are easier for the user to justify or explain, deliberately creating an illusion that they are intellectually superior due to having "won" the argument. When someone makes an argument, most people immediately counter-argue. However, it is difficult for anyone to state every idea necessary to complete their argument in that first attempt, because attention and working memory are limited. Instead, the most appropriate first response is usually asking questions. Questions should not encourage a favourable answer, but encourage all parties to clarify facts and consider ideas which they may not have. Once everyone has maximum clarity, then they may counter-argue. Counter-arguments should ideally include means of testing their validity, usually with a question. When we argue, we should refer to ideas and not the person using them. We should also avoid vague denials, exclamations, or insults (such as "that's so ignorant!"); these hold no substance in revealing facts. We should use empathic listening, meaning that our responses acknowledge why the other parties believe as they do; this helps to keep everyone in a calm state with clarity of thought. This includes acknowledging when a party makes a valid claim that challenges our own beliefs.

Consider this example: suppose that person A believes that the sun sets in the east, while person B argues that it sets in the west. Each must specify how they define the sun "rising" and "setting", and the directions — let us assume that they do so correctly. When person A makes their argument, person B may counter-argue: “When I observe the sun setting in a given direction, a compass, which is considered valid due to its use of the Earth's magnetic force, always indicates that I am looking in a westerly direction. If the sun does not set in the west, what does this mean about the compass, and is our agreement on the meaning of these directions erroneous?”

This ethos is also healthy in handling regular conflicts. When someone raises a challenge such as "John, you did not send that email which I requested", either party may have made a mistake without malicious intent. Reacting irritably gives one party the impression that the other spitefully refuses to take responsibility for their actions, needlessly harming the relationship. Simultaneously, if the recipient meekly assumes that the other person is correct every time this happens, they may wrongly present themselves as admittedly unreliable, while teaching themselves to continue this behaviour to please people. The optimal response would be to check their records and show the date and time at which they sent the email with no emotional presentation, demonstrating dignity while teaching the other person an important lesson: to be careful. Of course, if they indeed did not send the email, they would simply apologise and do what was requested. When the disagreement is more significant, we must again consider that each party may have valid reasons to disagree. Empathic listening and questioning involves acknowledging the other person's expression (such as "I can see that this has upset you"), expressing intent to help resolve the problem, and asking them to clarify their needs. Once each person believes that they have understood, they paraphrase the other's explanation to verify it. Once the issue is agreed, they present their needs calmly and ask how each party can negotiate a solution.

When someone falsely accuses or otherwise psychologically targets another with malice, the recipient can calmly ask for evidence of the claims and state facts. If the accuser provides invalid or ambiguous evidence, the recipient questions how the evidence is conclusive or why another explanation that does not involve their wrongdoing is invalid. If the person deliberately uses "straw man" arguments, the recipient asks how they are relevant. For example, suppose a social media post depicts a child drawing on a wall, genuinely because they believe that their parents will enjoy the art. At least one person will comment: "The child is an idiot. I'd smack them!" A quality response may be: "how is the child worthy of a derogatory label for doing what they did not know was undesirable?" If the response is "they'll be scared to do it again", we reply: "yes, but how do you know that you will not also teach them unhealthy lessons that affect their later functioning?" If the response is "I was smacked as a child and I turned out fine", we reply: "that is one experience. What do other people say about your relations with them? And what evidence is there that your result applies to most people?" If the response is "LOL okay libtard" (I cringed typing this), we reply: "that does not provide evidence against my argument; try again".

There is no shame in imperfection. But a great problem which has plagued the mind and fuelled every major conflict throughout history, is the tendency to willingly remain ignorant of our flaws, and seek comfort in clinging to our beliefs regardless of the danger. However, just as we have potential to destroy, we have potential to construct, and it is never too late to begin. What I have described is not to encourage "people-pleasing" or remaining silent in injustice. Rather, it prevents us from escalating disagreements when there is no malice by the other party, and when there is, we more effectively defend ourselves by depriving them of what they want (opportunities for them to weaponise our distress) and discouraging them from continuing by weakening their feeling of control. We also strengthen our minds by practicing more strategic, analytical responses, and teaching ourselves to be in control of our reactions. It is just a part of a great existential journey: navigating the responsibility of deciding when to maintain our position to guard against exploitation, and allow ourselves to be challenged to guard against ignorance.

---

Thought of the month

Often, it is healthier to know that enemies are inevitable and prepare for their advance, than to seek them.