There is a category confusion in this essay. While it is certainly the case that all “classic game[s] of debate” are also arguments, it is most definitely not the case that all arguments are also debates, classic or otherwise. Most arguments are not debates at all, but a kind of low-grade, managed conflict whose purpose has little or nothing to do with “the agonistic search for truth.” People who have children will recognize the difference instantly, as will people with parents, people with siblings, people who are married, people with coworkers, people with friends, people whose name has a vowel in it somewhere, etc.
The difference between debate - and all of the other forms that argument takes - matters a lot. For people engaged in rational debate the pursuit of “winning” makes a kind of interim sense. The antagonistic scheme enforces a rigor that practically no one can bring to bear on him or herself. Rational debate stress tests the structural integrity of our thought. For the serious person “losing” a real debate is the greatest victory of all. Truth itself will have won out, and its devotee rewarded, however uncomfortable the journey. Serious people can remember times when they discovered errors in their thinking and their convictions then shifted. Ideologues cannot.
In any case what most of us are dealing with in our day to day lives is not the challenge and opportunity of rational debate. Matt Lutz’s piece acknowledges as much. The ancient admonition about where not to cast your pearls applies.
Still, the swollen river of irrationality rolls on. Many of us – more and more urgently - can’t help feeling the need to take some kind of stand if liberal culture itself is not to be washed out to sea. My experience has been that arguing to win makes everything worse, poisons personal relationships, and provides at best a sullen acquiescence in the “defeated” and at worst a resentful truce. But what is to be done? These times seem different, when “this too shall pass” sounds anemic, timid, irresponsible. One possibility is that we exchange the rhetoric of debate with something like the rhetoric of inquiry, where the aim of our speech becomes the asking of questions rather than the discovery of conclusions . Can we, by example, show people how to actually think? Can we make it our objective to have people think who are only accustomed to having thoughts? To do so we will have to think ourselves. We can begin by asking, “what is the nature of conversations that induce actual thinking?” It is unlikely that the answer will be, “By winning arguments.”
You make a helpful suggestion, Chris--to move from the rhetoric of debate to the rhetoric of inquiry. I am reminded of Edgar Schein's lovely little book: "Humble Inquiry: The Gentle Art of Asking instead of Telling." I am also reminded of Glenda Eoyang's four 'simple rules of inquiry': 1. Turn judgement into curiosity; 2. Turn disagreement into shared exploration; 3. Turn defensiveness into self-reflection; 4. Turn assumptions into questions.
More easily said than done, of course. But powerfully effective when taken seriously--even if only by one side of the conversation. The premise of the simple rules is, of course, a commitment to get to truth, but in a humble and gentle way.
If only we had this insight back in late 1930s Germany! I think it is a lovely ideal, but I wonder if doesn't suffer the same sort of vulnerability as someone trained in TaeKwonDo who finds themselves in a street fight. There are folks who don't care about the truth. They will lie, cheat, and steal their way to power and then lie, cheat, steal and oppress anyone who threatens their power. Trying to engage in shared exploration with such folks is a fool's errand. Eventually, one should stop asking their attacker, "Why are you punching me in the face?" and get on with hitting back.
Or, am I being too pessimistic here? Let me try a humble inquiry: does there exist any circumstance where humble inquiry fails and should be abandoned for some other approach?
You are of course correct, PT. There are folks who do not care about truth. Some of them only care about power, as you note. Humble inquiry is not a panacea that guarantees Utopia. But I do believe it is a useful and constructive place to at least begin. Even with the person who seems to be only interested in power, might there be insights gained by being curious about the roots and motivations of their need for power? What is their history? What are their sources of anxiety and fear? Being curious might (only might!) open some doors to a conversation that could lead to finding some common values and concerns.
But this is not about being naive. There are people and situations in which humble inquiry would not be advised. (Though I think humility is always appropriate.)
I'm sympathetic with the spirit of this argument, but I think the issue of ad hominem argument is trickier than you suggest. You write, "If you offer an argument that x is true, and I respond by attacking you, I’m not actually addressing the argument that x is true. If I question your motives, I’m just changing the subject from the truth of x to an unrelated question about your personality. But even if you are a bad person, you might have given a good argument for x. And if you’ve given a good argument for x, this gives me a compelling reason to believe your proposition."
But what if I offer an argument in support of free speech, arguing that it's both a human right and an important element of democratic culture. You then respond by pointing to the way in which powerful elites (including courts) have invoked "free speech" in order insulate those with economic power from regulation or redistributive measures (or those with social power to dominate the voices of those without it), thereby increasing inequality in a way that is bad for democracy. Is that an "ad hominem" argument? It's not in the sense that it's not attacking the motives of the person making the argument, but it is in the sense that it's not directly attacking my argument "on the merits" but instead pointing to the function that my argument as served (which is what "motivation" arguments are usually trying to do).
Is that a legitimate argument or Calvinball? This is not a rhetorical question--I think it's a hard question. The point is just to complicate the idea of what ad hominem argument consists in. Anyway, thanks for your very interesting essay.
"Ad hominem" means "against the person." An example of what that might look like in your scenario: someone makes an argument for free speech and in response someone says "but you're a Canadian and everyone know Canadians aren't to be trusted, therefore free speech is bad!" An ad hominem happens when the speaker is attacked instead of the idea the speaker has presented.
In your case, pointing out that there are social costs to free speech is perfectly legitimate. We could explore that idea and come to conclusions, or continue to disagree. For example, we might decide to agree that free speech as in the US Constitution gives a large platform to corporate speech that may be distorting to our public discourse and system of government. We could also conclude that notwithstanding the costs of free speech, state intervention to prefer or dis-prefer certain kinds of speech and speakers would be a worse harm to our society. And so on, until we have figured out the social value of free speech. No fallacy in that.
What you have described is not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if the response to the claim in support of free speech was a criticism the person making the claim in an effort to cast the speaker as somehow untrustworthy and to thereby dismiss their argument as illegitimate.
OK, but what if it was directed at the group to which the author belonged (e.g., "intellectuals" or "elites" or "theorists")? In this case, the claim is that a particular kind of argument or theory serves a (nefarious) function by virtue of it being invoked.
That might qualify. Fauci says wearing masks can slow down the spread of COVID-19. Response: The Deep State just wants to control people. Instead of disputing the claim about the effectiveness of mask wearing, the claim is dismissed because of the person making the claim, and the person's affiliation with some group.
The key is the dodge. Failing to deal with the claim itself. Now, I have heard people bring up an example like, "what if the claim itself is a claim about the untrustworthiness of a speaker or group?" In this case the claim (call it Claim 1) is not an ad hominem, as it stands on its own. It is only when this claim is presented as a counter to a claim made by the speaker in an effort to refuse to deal with the speaker's claim does it become ad hominem.
So not all claims about individuals are ad hominem. Only claims about individuals that are presented as THE REASON why an individuals claims are not true.
Yup. That all seems right. But note that such an argument will be perfectly rational in many cases, such as those in which we are inclined to defer to a person's expertise. So if Fauci starts promoting a particular drug for COVID and someone then points to the fact that the drug company is paying Fauci to serve as a spokesman for that drug, we'd legitimately want to know that fact (even if ad hominem), no?
Maybe, but now we are dealing with the appeal to authority fallacy and its inverse. The focus on "fallacy" is specifically addressing logic and whether a conclusion NECESSARILY follows from the premise.
If Fauci has a conflict of interest it still doesn't mean that what he is claiming is necessarily false. The only thing that matters with regard to whether what he is saying is false or not is whether it is false or not.
That's a helpful distinction. Does the Ad hominem fallacy require that it "necessarily" follows? If so, then almost every argument short of logical deduction would qualify as a "fallacy," no? And doesn't include most of the sorts of arguments advanced in cultural, political, social debate?
At heart Calvinball seems based on a conflict v mistake theory distinction (credit to the dearly missed slatestarcodex). For people who think disagreement arises primarily from mistakes - that one or both sides are in some way making a logical error and if we dig deep enough we can spot it and thereafter agree - the rules of logical engagement are crucial. They provide a framework for finding the mistake that lets people arguing work through issues quickly using known logical principles.
For someone who thinks rivalrous power dynamics in a zero sum game are the root of argument, as both populist trolls and left wing activists fairly expressly do, this sort of carefully curtailed logical game is not desirable at all. They want to win, not find an answer, so pursue winning strategies that are non-collaborative (whereas even a heated argument on common framework is collaborative to an extent). Essentially, they defect on the prisoner's dilemma. Their tactic is not to show logical superiority but social - a better ratio, more biting meme, a more unfavorable casting of your position, a better grasp of irony and ability to "read the room".
The collaborative intellectual pose is a crucial legacy of the enlightenment. We need it. We must cultivate it. But i also worry that it performs poorly in direct confrontation with the confrontational pose seeking merely to exert power. And that's not a problem I know how to solve.
Love this and definitely agree. So much of what we are talking about requires participants to want to “get it right” not “be right.” I think a possible path is Haidt’s point about talking to their “elephant.” We need to get a better understandIng of their moral driver (liberty, sanctity, loyalty, etc.) and from there we can create empathy and hopefully nudge them towards a better understanding of/sympathy towards a competing interest.
I think moral foundations theory is potentially very useful. We need ways to get to someone else's initial emotional entry point into an issue and engage starting there. That makes it easier to keep the tone good faith truth seeking and not immediately have the person you're talking to switch into competitive zero sum mode.
Perhaps naive, but it is the route that gets you to the "best" answer. Otherwise, it is just bargaining based on a power dynamic (economic, moral, political, etc.). Regardless, acknowledging that this is the desired state allows you to call out when tradeoffs are being made as a function of power vs. the pursuit of truth. This is why I believe acknowledging/addressing the weakness in your own argument often enables a more constructive dialogue. This gives you a moral/emotional "entry point" and builds some level of trust in the discussion which in turn provides a better opportunity to persuade (or at least keeps you in dialogue [vs. conflict] longer).
The main critique that I saw of the Harpers Letter for Open Debate was an ad hominem reaction against the signatories, who some felt weren't sufficiently radical for their concern about open debate and intellectual freedom to be genuine. It was pretty jarring to watch so many nodding along to the (obviously false) notion that the content of the letter meant nothing in the shadow of the perceived hypocrisy of the signatories. It actually got me thinking a lot about how the ad hominem fallacy doesn't seem to mean anything anymore to the partisans of the left (I still consider myself one of them, though). My personal theory as to why is that too many leftists have come to adore analyses of power without knowing how to properly apply them. So the truth or falsity of proposition x coming from individual y will mean much less than y's broader "agenda," their position within the power structure of our society, and x's relation to various systems, such as capitalism of racism. So an activist on the left likely won't care if x is a true proposition, as long as it is seen as supporting a harmful system of ideas and y is seen as a person who on the whole advances these sorts of dangerous ideas.
This is unfortunate for me, as someone who enjoys intellectual debate. But to be honest, I struggle to think of a reason why leftists shouldn't just continue to badger and shame their worst enemies, because when has having a good argument ever been enough in real life? Sound and valid arguments against racism have existed for years, but to little effect. There were very smart and very persuasive arguments against invading Vietnam, but it didn't matter. I think the occasions when a good argument won out over power must be truly very rare (I'll welcome counter examples). So why should people fighting for life and death issues (racism, imperialism, environmentalism) play by the rules? Lutz seems to suggest that playing by the rules can be equally, if not more, effective. But is there actually historical evidence of this?
I think that the answer to this is more obvious if you flip the actors. What if I ask "Why shouldn't the far right appeal to identitarian and authoritarian insticts that they know will motivate people to do what they want? After all, the left is badgering and shaming their opponents and is explicitly hostile to reason?" You actually see this evolving on the right. They call it "making the left play by their own rules". But eventually, those just become *the* rules.
As a society, we will not achieve unanimity but we may be able to set some ground rules on how to disagree without killing one another. We used to call this "tolerance", a word whose meaning has changed, at least on the left. And if we abandon reason, raw power-seeking is all that remains. If that happens, you'd better hope that your side wins, and that you harbor no points of dissent from the dominant orthodoxy.
That would certainly be a pretty toxic kind of discourse. But without a fully functioning democratic process, there's no buy in to play by the rules. Lutz implies that there is a buy in, that we can reach agreement and solve problems through playing by the rules. But as I mentioned before, people fighting for life or death can't be expected to play nice when doing so has no meaningful consequences. If as you say the right has resorted to an identitarian/authoritarian discourse and the left has resorted to a moralistic discourse, it's hard to blame either side for choosing pragmatism over logic. The key here, I think, isn't an education campaign about the ad hominem fallacy, but reforming our democratic process.
Exactly one of my points also that timing in relation to winning arguments is important to consider, but so is the virtue of a sober debate. Should people willingly sacrifice the benefits of winning a debate for the sake of virtue? I fear that if people will not commit to sacrifices in order to win an election the fear of losing the next one will lead them down the same path of lies and so the vicious circle will lead to one party states because virtue was sacrificed for the sake of self-interests.
I think there is a great risk in thinking that we should only play by the rules when the costs of losing is low and only when our opponents play by the rules.
I'm not just talking about the electoral process. People with legitimate grievances (like black people being killed by the police) need functioning democratic channels through which they will be heard and policy could actually change. When those doors are closed, I think that's what elicits the mob response.
This is an important reply because I think it encapsulates very accurately the cynical reason the illiberati on both sides of the political aisle dispense with rational argument, viz., they don't view it as an effective technique for getting what they want as quickly as they want. "Sound and valid arguments against racism" have triggered significant political change in the past 50 years, but it took 50 years, and we still have quite a ways to go. So impatience causes a tack to power plays and abandonment of the desire to reach the truth through philosophical discourse. The response in my view takes its cue from Burkean conservatism: Beneficial change necessary comes incrementally and slowly. Only that kind of political change (as opposed to say, revolution) affords maximum opportunity for refinement of direction at each step (reducing missteps) and increases the odds of permanence, given that it increases buy in and minimizes resentment at having change "forced" on dissenters. To me, that is the pragmatic response to those advocating power over truth: It may achieve some form or amount of change very quickly, but it will not last, will not enjoy broad acceptance (beyond, say, a majority), and may very well be setting us on an irreversibly bad path.
For the most part, I agree. Even though I see myself on the left, I believe in a reformist democratic process. But when we’re talking about something like police murder that happens pretty consistently over a 50 year period, I’m not willing to tell someone that they need to be patient and respect the democratic process. Based on everything I’ve read, I think it’s pretty clear that systemic racism has hindered that process. So I think it’s hard to blame people for seeking a more pragmatic path to securing their own safety and well being. And just a not about my previous comment that “sound and valid arguments against racism” didn’t lead to change. Remember, it took a combination of MLK’s civil disobedience and Malcolm X’s more militant approach for the civil rights movement to win victories. The democratic process did not offer a channel for African Americans to voice their grievances and make changes, so they turned to popular democracy. Anyways, I think we have the same ideal process in mind, call it Burkean or call it reformist.
Appreciate the article and the arguments put forth. It can be useful to consider Calvinball as a tool of analysis. And, as others have insightfully responded already, I think there is more going on among the authoritarian-left (AL) than simply playing or not playing by the rules of reasoned debate and truth-seeking. The AL are in no way seeking to uncover truth, or seeking to bring about reasoned consensus, imho. They are focused on tracking power, most especially epistemic power (knowledge production) and by extension, their tactics revolve around acquiring that same power and consolidating cultural territory. Educational institutions are their primary battleground. Indoctrination, most especially of the young, is the weapon of choice. For older demographics, shame and guilt aimed towards conversion is the weapon of choice. I’m personally fascinated by how tightly these methods adhere to colonial Jesuit methods of conversion and indoctrination of both ‘pagan’ Europeans and Native Americans. Fundamentalist projects of assimilation have similarly always been the religious bread and butter or Puritanism and progressive politics in general in western countries. While arguments that frame these issues as a matter of logic and rational debate are interesting, I think they are missing the larger undercurrent of religiosity at play, and the deeper levels of negotiations of power and territory and control that are exerted between spiritual communities. It’s not left vs right - it’s Christian theists vs secular theists.
Thanks, great article! I agree, but there is one grey area I keep coming back to with respect to ad hominem arguments. When debating some topic, what might seem (to me) like an ad hominem attack might be reframed like this in the mind of my interlocutor: "I would like to point out a relevant conflict of interest in this argument which you have failed to disclose. You get a penalty for not being honest and forthright". This seems like it could be legitimate in certain contexts. Does anyone else struggle with distinguishing between these two ways of viewing a potentially ad hominem line of reasoning, and how do you deal with that?
That's a good question Andrew. I think there are a couple of ideas that can help us think about this. Certain kinds of arguments (good arguments) stand regardless of the arguer. For example, if a corporate CFO made the argument corporate taxes decrease corporate profits, lower corporate profits lower share prices, lower share prices hurt retirees // higher corporate taxes hurt retirees, we could evaluate this argument regardless of the identity of the arguer. However, if a less good version of this argument was made, for example: the CFO said: "I oppose higher corporate taxes because they hurt retirees" we would be right to ask that person to prove that this is so because they have a conflict of interest. In this case the real problem is that they have argued through mere assertion versus actually making an argument.
I think the other idea to consider is the idea of being a charitable arguer. It is our goal to find out what is true, not necessarily to win, so if our CFO make the later statement: "corporate profits hurt retirees" we should resist the urge to dismiss it on conflicts of interest grounds and instead try to interrogate it on its merits to see if indeed it might be true. We may be able to build the more complex argument and then find out if it is true or not. In any case, we'd know more than we did when we started, no matter who "wins."
The research world may provide an example of this process. Increasingly biomedical - and even basic - research is done by private companies, with the profit motive that implies. So, a large and important block of research knowledge has a built-in conflict of interest. If I am a drug developer I may want to understand and explain some core principles of pharmacodynamics, but I also want to get rich by discovering the next Viagra. How do you evaluate my data?
The FDA and research community has struggled mightily with this over the years. One solution has been the requirement that all authors' institutional affiliations and funding sources be spelled out explicitly. This has nothing to do with the quality or nature of the data. Rather, it declares potential conflicts of interest. Is evaluating a paper in light of such conflicts "ad hominem"? Research advancement requires that we take at their word investigators' descriptions of the methods they used to produce a given result. This is crucial; monitors cannot be looking over the shoulder of everyone in the lab. Should we be more/less suspicious of the integrity of a study performed in the private sector rather than academia? Is it fair to assume that profit motive = low credibility?
Science ostensibly has methods for ferreting out "bad faith" research results. Does the study replicate in someone else's lab? Do converging studies using different methods point to the same conclusion? Similarly, disinterested logic can ostensibly ferret out bad faith arguments or assumptions. The problem is that no one is ever wholly "disinterested". There is always a dog in that fight (an axe to grind...?) The hyper-logical Dr. Spock is fiction. We may be stuck trying to stick to the facts, but still considering the source.
Some people have better skills than others in composing logical arguments. Lawyers, for example, learn in law school how to argue both sides of a case. This skill can be used to beat down someone who hasn't had an opportunity to learn the skill but nevertheless feels deeply about her position. Out-arguing someone doesn't necessarily make you right. And lo and behold, it turns out that the people best skilled in logical argument have tended to be white males and the less skilled people have been women and racial minorities. This is the sense in which I agree with the critique of objectivity and rationality.
Whether certain groups are better or worse at logical arguing, perhaps due to educational experience, may or may not be true but I don't think that is a fact. Regardless, even if this is your position you're not actually critiquing rationality and objectivity but people who are better at manipulating those concepts. As close to perfect as possible rationality and objectivity, whoever it is coming from, is still the best way to define reality and come up with solutions. Without it you are wandering in the darkness grasping at whatever feels emotionally relevant. History shows the solutions that come from that process are usually ineffective or counterproductive. If the goal is really to solve the problems in society we must define them accurately, using data and rational thinking, and then come up with solutions. The solutions we come up with will likely will be two-fold. The best possible solutions available and then the solutions that are best and most practical to implement.
I agree with you that reason and an attempt to reach objectivity are the best methods for finding the truth. My point is that people who are versed in using this approach position should search for the kernel of truth in honest, albeit emotional, statements by people. People with different life experiences have something to add to determining what is true, even if they can't frame what they are trying to say as a logical argument.
I think you bring up a great point, Robin, and this kind of empathy or consideration or compassion or whatever you want to call it is as objective and rational as a logical deduction! To simply note that kernel of truth. We should learn to have the courage to do this; it is one way that we can bridge a divide and begin to come together, despite our disparate views. This is something I think Jordan Peterson does well.
You make a good point Robin. It is a tragedy that we don't teach logic widely in public schools. It has real negative consequences and gives enormous power to rhetoricians like politicians and advertisers. Plato made the distinction between "rhetoric" and "logic." Rhetoric is what the lawyers do when they argue both sides of a question. It is what advertisers do to get people to buy junk they don't need. They aren't trying to find out what is true, they are trying to win.
Logic is different. It is designed to find out what is true and what isn't. It has rules that everyone, once they learn them, can share and understand. These rules let us learn things about the real world. A simple example of a logical rule is called modus tollens. In simplest terms it tells us that if we know a conditional is true, like, "If I had a big dinner then I'm no longer hungry" we can find out if I had a big dinner by finding out if I'm hungry.
In logic language it looks like:
Dinner->Not Hungry
If we then learned that I was still hungry, we'd know I didn't eat dinner. So:
Dinner->Not Hungry
Hungry
Therefore
Didn't have dinner
There are hundreds of such argument forms we can learn and they can help us maximize the knowledge we can infer from information available. They can also help us avoid the traps of the rhetoricians and advertising people who try and trick us. There is no reason we shouldn't teach logic in primary school. Or maybe there is one, it would take power away from the lawyers, politicians, and advertisers who use bad arguments to trick us.
I agree with this, you have to keep putting quality arguments out if you're capable of doing so. If you find that the person your debating isn't doing so in good faith then I make my points, note that I don't think this is a good faith debate and move on.
I suspect that a not insignificant %, tough to know exactly, of the leading woke activists who are pushing the illiberal arguments are doing so in bad faith as an attempt to increase their personal power and status. If benefits accrue to those they supposedly speak for actually happen, great, but that's not their main purpose.
Most of the followers of these leaders seem to be cowed by fear, well-intentioned but uneducated on the details or true believers. They are the ones who really need to see the arguments being made because many more ppl fall in the first two categories than do in the latter.
Is it possible that an even bigger issue than making sure people are able to see through weak logic like ad hominem attacks, is doing a better job of persuading people of the value of debate, and of being open minded? Which may not be best accomplished by debate.
Confusion arises because so much "argument" nowadays is really just a variety of advertising, of campaigning for or cheering on a particular point of view. It's not that people don't realize ad hominem attacks are bad logic. It's that they aren't really trying to convince anyone on the other side, they are just preaching to the cheering choir. And the choir really likes ad hominem attacks! It is like cheering for a sports team.
So sure, keep arguing, and argue well. But also stop talking so much, listen more. After all, on issues you are sure about, don't kid yourself - you're really advertising or campaigning, and debate isn't always the most effective way to campaign.
Enjoyed reading the article and the comments. I can't recall, did Hobbs ever win a game?
There are many good points in the article and the framing I think is brilliant. In the concluding remarks it's stated that likely, good arguments will eventually win. "Calvinists" will turn into good "Catholics" as the years go by. If it's likely that good arguments will eventually prevail then it means that it's likely that some good arguments will eventually lose, since we are not certain all good arguments will inevitably persuade 100 % of the human population from a certain point in time and then ad aeternum.
What do we mean by "good arguments will likely eventually win"? Does it mean it's uncertain how long it will take for a good argument to win, but given infinite time it will likely win if there is someone using those arguments at any given point in time? And by winning do we mean a narrow majority that's persuaded and will remain so forever? Do we have an example of such an argument that has already won?
It seems that we can't persuade people on all issues, but will have too lose some of the debates. Perhaps then we should focus our truthing on the most important issues and lose the less important ones. It also seems that we will have to keep making good arguments forever, while risking short-term loses that might make life miserable for an indefinite period. Perhaps when the earth has become uninhabitable the last people to perish will have been persuaded by the good arguments albeit too late. A noble goal has been reached, but the spoils of victory will not be enjoyed for long.
How can we end the Rhetorical Calvinball short and long term?
Senior golfers (like me) bend the rules. We give each other 5 foot putts, tee the ball up in the grass and, generally, cheat according to our age. But on a professional level the rules of golf are applied religiously, and they work universally well on courses that vary in myriad ways. There is no profound truth here. Simply, pros don’t play against each other. They play against the course, just as a good debater plays against the argument. And this you can only do only if you listen carefully, and respect, your opponent. But that is so, so hard to do when human nature is the playing field we walk out onto day by day. This view leads me to wondering at times what good debaters might do with the question: “ Was the philosophy of Jesus basically flawed?”
There is one thought I would like to offer... and can perhaps usefully frame why this current climate is so difficult to navigate. Calvin and Hobbes can at least agree that they are playing Calvinball...
Perhaps the problem is that the debate game is often the wrong game to play. I prefer the constructive dialogue game. Debate is a zero sum game in many cases. It ensures entrenched conflict. Constructive dialogue is positive sum. If I’m 70% right and you’re 20% right, debate might let me “win”, but I’m still left with just 70%. With constructive dialogue, we might both get to 90%. More importantly, if we can add players and build on the 90%, even if they have less than 90% to add. With debate, the maximum outcome is merely the maximum that any one player might already possess.
There is a category confusion in this essay. While it is certainly the case that all “classic game[s] of debate” are also arguments, it is most definitely not the case that all arguments are also debates, classic or otherwise. Most arguments are not debates at all, but a kind of low-grade, managed conflict whose purpose has little or nothing to do with “the agonistic search for truth.” People who have children will recognize the difference instantly, as will people with parents, people with siblings, people who are married, people with coworkers, people with friends, people whose name has a vowel in it somewhere, etc.
The difference between debate - and all of the other forms that argument takes - matters a lot. For people engaged in rational debate the pursuit of “winning” makes a kind of interim sense. The antagonistic scheme enforces a rigor that practically no one can bring to bear on him or herself. Rational debate stress tests the structural integrity of our thought. For the serious person “losing” a real debate is the greatest victory of all. Truth itself will have won out, and its devotee rewarded, however uncomfortable the journey. Serious people can remember times when they discovered errors in their thinking and their convictions then shifted. Ideologues cannot.
In any case what most of us are dealing with in our day to day lives is not the challenge and opportunity of rational debate. Matt Lutz’s piece acknowledges as much. The ancient admonition about where not to cast your pearls applies.
Still, the swollen river of irrationality rolls on. Many of us – more and more urgently - can’t help feeling the need to take some kind of stand if liberal culture itself is not to be washed out to sea. My experience has been that arguing to win makes everything worse, poisons personal relationships, and provides at best a sullen acquiescence in the “defeated” and at worst a resentful truce. But what is to be done? These times seem different, when “this too shall pass” sounds anemic, timid, irresponsible. One possibility is that we exchange the rhetoric of debate with something like the rhetoric of inquiry, where the aim of our speech becomes the asking of questions rather than the discovery of conclusions . Can we, by example, show people how to actually think? Can we make it our objective to have people think who are only accustomed to having thoughts? To do so we will have to think ourselves. We can begin by asking, “what is the nature of conversations that induce actual thinking?” It is unlikely that the answer will be, “By winning arguments.”
You make a helpful suggestion, Chris--to move from the rhetoric of debate to the rhetoric of inquiry. I am reminded of Edgar Schein's lovely little book: "Humble Inquiry: The Gentle Art of Asking instead of Telling." I am also reminded of Glenda Eoyang's four 'simple rules of inquiry': 1. Turn judgement into curiosity; 2. Turn disagreement into shared exploration; 3. Turn defensiveness into self-reflection; 4. Turn assumptions into questions.
More easily said than done, of course. But powerfully effective when taken seriously--even if only by one side of the conversation. The premise of the simple rules is, of course, a commitment to get to truth, but in a humble and gentle way.
If only we had this insight back in late 1930s Germany! I think it is a lovely ideal, but I wonder if doesn't suffer the same sort of vulnerability as someone trained in TaeKwonDo who finds themselves in a street fight. There are folks who don't care about the truth. They will lie, cheat, and steal their way to power and then lie, cheat, steal and oppress anyone who threatens their power. Trying to engage in shared exploration with such folks is a fool's errand. Eventually, one should stop asking their attacker, "Why are you punching me in the face?" and get on with hitting back.
Or, am I being too pessimistic here? Let me try a humble inquiry: does there exist any circumstance where humble inquiry fails and should be abandoned for some other approach?
You are of course correct, PT. There are folks who do not care about truth. Some of them only care about power, as you note. Humble inquiry is not a panacea that guarantees Utopia. But I do believe it is a useful and constructive place to at least begin. Even with the person who seems to be only interested in power, might there be insights gained by being curious about the roots and motivations of their need for power? What is their history? What are their sources of anxiety and fear? Being curious might (only might!) open some doors to a conversation that could lead to finding some common values and concerns.
But this is not about being naive. There are people and situations in which humble inquiry would not be advised. (Though I think humility is always appropriate.)
I'm sympathetic with the spirit of this argument, but I think the issue of ad hominem argument is trickier than you suggest. You write, "If you offer an argument that x is true, and I respond by attacking you, I’m not actually addressing the argument that x is true. If I question your motives, I’m just changing the subject from the truth of x to an unrelated question about your personality. But even if you are a bad person, you might have given a good argument for x. And if you’ve given a good argument for x, this gives me a compelling reason to believe your proposition."
But what if I offer an argument in support of free speech, arguing that it's both a human right and an important element of democratic culture. You then respond by pointing to the way in which powerful elites (including courts) have invoked "free speech" in order insulate those with economic power from regulation or redistributive measures (or those with social power to dominate the voices of those without it), thereby increasing inequality in a way that is bad for democracy. Is that an "ad hominem" argument? It's not in the sense that it's not attacking the motives of the person making the argument, but it is in the sense that it's not directly attacking my argument "on the merits" but instead pointing to the function that my argument as served (which is what "motivation" arguments are usually trying to do).
Is that a legitimate argument or Calvinball? This is not a rhetorical question--I think it's a hard question. The point is just to complicate the idea of what ad hominem argument consists in. Anyway, thanks for your very interesting essay.
"Ad hominem" means "against the person." An example of what that might look like in your scenario: someone makes an argument for free speech and in response someone says "but you're a Canadian and everyone know Canadians aren't to be trusted, therefore free speech is bad!" An ad hominem happens when the speaker is attacked instead of the idea the speaker has presented.
In your case, pointing out that there are social costs to free speech is perfectly legitimate. We could explore that idea and come to conclusions, or continue to disagree. For example, we might decide to agree that free speech as in the US Constitution gives a large platform to corporate speech that may be distorting to our public discourse and system of government. We could also conclude that notwithstanding the costs of free speech, state intervention to prefer or dis-prefer certain kinds of speech and speakers would be a worse harm to our society. And so on, until we have figured out the social value of free speech. No fallacy in that.
What you have described is not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if the response to the claim in support of free speech was a criticism the person making the claim in an effort to cast the speaker as somehow untrustworthy and to thereby dismiss their argument as illegitimate.
OK, but what if it was directed at the group to which the author belonged (e.g., "intellectuals" or "elites" or "theorists")? In this case, the claim is that a particular kind of argument or theory serves a (nefarious) function by virtue of it being invoked.
That might qualify. Fauci says wearing masks can slow down the spread of COVID-19. Response: The Deep State just wants to control people. Instead of disputing the claim about the effectiveness of mask wearing, the claim is dismissed because of the person making the claim, and the person's affiliation with some group.
The key is the dodge. Failing to deal with the claim itself. Now, I have heard people bring up an example like, "what if the claim itself is a claim about the untrustworthiness of a speaker or group?" In this case the claim (call it Claim 1) is not an ad hominem, as it stands on its own. It is only when this claim is presented as a counter to a claim made by the speaker in an effort to refuse to deal with the speaker's claim does it become ad hominem.
So not all claims about individuals are ad hominem. Only claims about individuals that are presented as THE REASON why an individuals claims are not true.
Yup. That all seems right. But note that such an argument will be perfectly rational in many cases, such as those in which we are inclined to defer to a person's expertise. So if Fauci starts promoting a particular drug for COVID and someone then points to the fact that the drug company is paying Fauci to serve as a spokesman for that drug, we'd legitimately want to know that fact (even if ad hominem), no?
Maybe, but now we are dealing with the appeal to authority fallacy and its inverse. The focus on "fallacy" is specifically addressing logic and whether a conclusion NECESSARILY follows from the premise.
If Fauci has a conflict of interest it still doesn't mean that what he is claiming is necessarily false. The only thing that matters with regard to whether what he is saying is false or not is whether it is false or not.
That's a helpful distinction. Does the Ad hominem fallacy require that it "necessarily" follows? If so, then almost every argument short of logical deduction would qualify as a "fallacy," no? And doesn't include most of the sorts of arguments advanced in cultural, political, social debate?
At heart Calvinball seems based on a conflict v mistake theory distinction (credit to the dearly missed slatestarcodex). For people who think disagreement arises primarily from mistakes - that one or both sides are in some way making a logical error and if we dig deep enough we can spot it and thereafter agree - the rules of logical engagement are crucial. They provide a framework for finding the mistake that lets people arguing work through issues quickly using known logical principles.
For someone who thinks rivalrous power dynamics in a zero sum game are the root of argument, as both populist trolls and left wing activists fairly expressly do, this sort of carefully curtailed logical game is not desirable at all. They want to win, not find an answer, so pursue winning strategies that are non-collaborative (whereas even a heated argument on common framework is collaborative to an extent). Essentially, they defect on the prisoner's dilemma. Their tactic is not to show logical superiority but social - a better ratio, more biting meme, a more unfavorable casting of your position, a better grasp of irony and ability to "read the room".
The collaborative intellectual pose is a crucial legacy of the enlightenment. We need it. We must cultivate it. But i also worry that it performs poorly in direct confrontation with the confrontational pose seeking merely to exert power. And that's not a problem I know how to solve.
Love this and definitely agree. So much of what we are talking about requires participants to want to “get it right” not “be right.” I think a possible path is Haidt’s point about talking to their “elephant.” We need to get a better understandIng of their moral driver (liberty, sanctity, loyalty, etc.) and from there we can create empathy and hopefully nudge them towards a better understanding of/sympathy towards a competing interest.
I think moral foundations theory is potentially very useful. We need ways to get to someone else's initial emotional entry point into an issue and engage starting there. That makes it easier to keep the tone good faith truth seeking and not immediately have the person you're talking to switch into competitive zero sum mode.
Ironically, that is really the foundation of effective rhetoric.
Ah yes, the Will to Power rather than the Will to Truth. One has to have complete and unfettered faith in the latter to defeat the former.
Perhaps naive, but it is the route that gets you to the "best" answer. Otherwise, it is just bargaining based on a power dynamic (economic, moral, political, etc.). Regardless, acknowledging that this is the desired state allows you to call out when tradeoffs are being made as a function of power vs. the pursuit of truth. This is why I believe acknowledging/addressing the weakness in your own argument often enables a more constructive dialogue. This gives you a moral/emotional "entry point" and builds some level of trust in the discussion which in turn provides a better opportunity to persuade (or at least keeps you in dialogue [vs. conflict] longer).
The main critique that I saw of the Harpers Letter for Open Debate was an ad hominem reaction against the signatories, who some felt weren't sufficiently radical for their concern about open debate and intellectual freedom to be genuine. It was pretty jarring to watch so many nodding along to the (obviously false) notion that the content of the letter meant nothing in the shadow of the perceived hypocrisy of the signatories. It actually got me thinking a lot about how the ad hominem fallacy doesn't seem to mean anything anymore to the partisans of the left (I still consider myself one of them, though). My personal theory as to why is that too many leftists have come to adore analyses of power without knowing how to properly apply them. So the truth or falsity of proposition x coming from individual y will mean much less than y's broader "agenda," their position within the power structure of our society, and x's relation to various systems, such as capitalism of racism. So an activist on the left likely won't care if x is a true proposition, as long as it is seen as supporting a harmful system of ideas and y is seen as a person who on the whole advances these sorts of dangerous ideas.
This is unfortunate for me, as someone who enjoys intellectual debate. But to be honest, I struggle to think of a reason why leftists shouldn't just continue to badger and shame their worst enemies, because when has having a good argument ever been enough in real life? Sound and valid arguments against racism have existed for years, but to little effect. There were very smart and very persuasive arguments against invading Vietnam, but it didn't matter. I think the occasions when a good argument won out over power must be truly very rare (I'll welcome counter examples). So why should people fighting for life and death issues (racism, imperialism, environmentalism) play by the rules? Lutz seems to suggest that playing by the rules can be equally, if not more, effective. But is there actually historical evidence of this?
I think that the answer to this is more obvious if you flip the actors. What if I ask "Why shouldn't the far right appeal to identitarian and authoritarian insticts that they know will motivate people to do what they want? After all, the left is badgering and shaming their opponents and is explicitly hostile to reason?" You actually see this evolving on the right. They call it "making the left play by their own rules". But eventually, those just become *the* rules.
As a society, we will not achieve unanimity but we may be able to set some ground rules on how to disagree without killing one another. We used to call this "tolerance", a word whose meaning has changed, at least on the left. And if we abandon reason, raw power-seeking is all that remains. If that happens, you'd better hope that your side wins, and that you harbor no points of dissent from the dominant orthodoxy.
That would certainly be a pretty toxic kind of discourse. But without a fully functioning democratic process, there's no buy in to play by the rules. Lutz implies that there is a buy in, that we can reach agreement and solve problems through playing by the rules. But as I mentioned before, people fighting for life or death can't be expected to play nice when doing so has no meaningful consequences. If as you say the right has resorted to an identitarian/authoritarian discourse and the left has resorted to a moralistic discourse, it's hard to blame either side for choosing pragmatism over logic. The key here, I think, isn't an education campaign about the ad hominem fallacy, but reforming our democratic process.
Exactly one of my points also that timing in relation to winning arguments is important to consider, but so is the virtue of a sober debate. Should people willingly sacrifice the benefits of winning a debate for the sake of virtue? I fear that if people will not commit to sacrifices in order to win an election the fear of losing the next one will lead them down the same path of lies and so the vicious circle will lead to one party states because virtue was sacrificed for the sake of self-interests.
I think there is a great risk in thinking that we should only play by the rules when the costs of losing is low and only when our opponents play by the rules.
I'm not just talking about the electoral process. People with legitimate grievances (like black people being killed by the police) need functioning democratic channels through which they will be heard and policy could actually change. When those doors are closed, I think that's what elicits the mob response.
This is an important reply because I think it encapsulates very accurately the cynical reason the illiberati on both sides of the political aisle dispense with rational argument, viz., they don't view it as an effective technique for getting what they want as quickly as they want. "Sound and valid arguments against racism" have triggered significant political change in the past 50 years, but it took 50 years, and we still have quite a ways to go. So impatience causes a tack to power plays and abandonment of the desire to reach the truth through philosophical discourse. The response in my view takes its cue from Burkean conservatism: Beneficial change necessary comes incrementally and slowly. Only that kind of political change (as opposed to say, revolution) affords maximum opportunity for refinement of direction at each step (reducing missteps) and increases the odds of permanence, given that it increases buy in and minimizes resentment at having change "forced" on dissenters. To me, that is the pragmatic response to those advocating power over truth: It may achieve some form or amount of change very quickly, but it will not last, will not enjoy broad acceptance (beyond, say, a majority), and may very well be setting us on an irreversibly bad path.
For the most part, I agree. Even though I see myself on the left, I believe in a reformist democratic process. But when we’re talking about something like police murder that happens pretty consistently over a 50 year period, I’m not willing to tell someone that they need to be patient and respect the democratic process. Based on everything I’ve read, I think it’s pretty clear that systemic racism has hindered that process. So I think it’s hard to blame people for seeking a more pragmatic path to securing their own safety and well being. And just a not about my previous comment that “sound and valid arguments against racism” didn’t lead to change. Remember, it took a combination of MLK’s civil disobedience and Malcolm X’s more militant approach for the civil rights movement to win victories. The democratic process did not offer a channel for African Americans to voice their grievances and make changes, so they turned to popular democracy. Anyways, I think we have the same ideal process in mind, call it Burkean or call it reformist.
Outstanding article. The problem is how do you get Calvin to play Chess!
Appreciate the article and the arguments put forth. It can be useful to consider Calvinball as a tool of analysis. And, as others have insightfully responded already, I think there is more going on among the authoritarian-left (AL) than simply playing or not playing by the rules of reasoned debate and truth-seeking. The AL are in no way seeking to uncover truth, or seeking to bring about reasoned consensus, imho. They are focused on tracking power, most especially epistemic power (knowledge production) and by extension, their tactics revolve around acquiring that same power and consolidating cultural territory. Educational institutions are their primary battleground. Indoctrination, most especially of the young, is the weapon of choice. For older demographics, shame and guilt aimed towards conversion is the weapon of choice. I’m personally fascinated by how tightly these methods adhere to colonial Jesuit methods of conversion and indoctrination of both ‘pagan’ Europeans and Native Americans. Fundamentalist projects of assimilation have similarly always been the religious bread and butter or Puritanism and progressive politics in general in western countries. While arguments that frame these issues as a matter of logic and rational debate are interesting, I think they are missing the larger undercurrent of religiosity at play, and the deeper levels of negotiations of power and territory and control that are exerted between spiritual communities. It’s not left vs right - it’s Christian theists vs secular theists.
Thanks, great article! I agree, but there is one grey area I keep coming back to with respect to ad hominem arguments. When debating some topic, what might seem (to me) like an ad hominem attack might be reframed like this in the mind of my interlocutor: "I would like to point out a relevant conflict of interest in this argument which you have failed to disclose. You get a penalty for not being honest and forthright". This seems like it could be legitimate in certain contexts. Does anyone else struggle with distinguishing between these two ways of viewing a potentially ad hominem line of reasoning, and how do you deal with that?
That's a good question Andrew. I think there are a couple of ideas that can help us think about this. Certain kinds of arguments (good arguments) stand regardless of the arguer. For example, if a corporate CFO made the argument corporate taxes decrease corporate profits, lower corporate profits lower share prices, lower share prices hurt retirees // higher corporate taxes hurt retirees, we could evaluate this argument regardless of the identity of the arguer. However, if a less good version of this argument was made, for example: the CFO said: "I oppose higher corporate taxes because they hurt retirees" we would be right to ask that person to prove that this is so because they have a conflict of interest. In this case the real problem is that they have argued through mere assertion versus actually making an argument.
I think the other idea to consider is the idea of being a charitable arguer. It is our goal to find out what is true, not necessarily to win, so if our CFO make the later statement: "corporate profits hurt retirees" we should resist the urge to dismiss it on conflicts of interest grounds and instead try to interrogate it on its merits to see if indeed it might be true. We may be able to build the more complex argument and then find out if it is true or not. In any case, we'd know more than we did when we started, no matter who "wins."
The research world may provide an example of this process. Increasingly biomedical - and even basic - research is done by private companies, with the profit motive that implies. So, a large and important block of research knowledge has a built-in conflict of interest. If I am a drug developer I may want to understand and explain some core principles of pharmacodynamics, but I also want to get rich by discovering the next Viagra. How do you evaluate my data?
The FDA and research community has struggled mightily with this over the years. One solution has been the requirement that all authors' institutional affiliations and funding sources be spelled out explicitly. This has nothing to do with the quality or nature of the data. Rather, it declares potential conflicts of interest. Is evaluating a paper in light of such conflicts "ad hominem"? Research advancement requires that we take at their word investigators' descriptions of the methods they used to produce a given result. This is crucial; monitors cannot be looking over the shoulder of everyone in the lab. Should we be more/less suspicious of the integrity of a study performed in the private sector rather than academia? Is it fair to assume that profit motive = low credibility?
Science ostensibly has methods for ferreting out "bad faith" research results. Does the study replicate in someone else's lab? Do converging studies using different methods point to the same conclusion? Similarly, disinterested logic can ostensibly ferret out bad faith arguments or assumptions. The problem is that no one is ever wholly "disinterested". There is always a dog in that fight (an axe to grind...?) The hyper-logical Dr. Spock is fiction. We may be stuck trying to stick to the facts, but still considering the source.
Some people have better skills than others in composing logical arguments. Lawyers, for example, learn in law school how to argue both sides of a case. This skill can be used to beat down someone who hasn't had an opportunity to learn the skill but nevertheless feels deeply about her position. Out-arguing someone doesn't necessarily make you right. And lo and behold, it turns out that the people best skilled in logical argument have tended to be white males and the less skilled people have been women and racial minorities. This is the sense in which I agree with the critique of objectivity and rationality.
Whether certain groups are better or worse at logical arguing, perhaps due to educational experience, may or may not be true but I don't think that is a fact. Regardless, even if this is your position you're not actually critiquing rationality and objectivity but people who are better at manipulating those concepts. As close to perfect as possible rationality and objectivity, whoever it is coming from, is still the best way to define reality and come up with solutions. Without it you are wandering in the darkness grasping at whatever feels emotionally relevant. History shows the solutions that come from that process are usually ineffective or counterproductive. If the goal is really to solve the problems in society we must define them accurately, using data and rational thinking, and then come up with solutions. The solutions we come up with will likely will be two-fold. The best possible solutions available and then the solutions that are best and most practical to implement.
I agree with you that reason and an attempt to reach objectivity are the best methods for finding the truth. My point is that people who are versed in using this approach position should search for the kernel of truth in honest, albeit emotional, statements by people. People with different life experiences have something to add to determining what is true, even if they can't frame what they are trying to say as a logical argument.
I think you bring up a great point, Robin, and this kind of empathy or consideration or compassion or whatever you want to call it is as objective and rational as a logical deduction! To simply note that kernel of truth. We should learn to have the courage to do this; it is one way that we can bridge a divide and begin to come together, despite our disparate views. This is something I think Jordan Peterson does well.
You make a good point Robin. It is a tragedy that we don't teach logic widely in public schools. It has real negative consequences and gives enormous power to rhetoricians like politicians and advertisers. Plato made the distinction between "rhetoric" and "logic." Rhetoric is what the lawyers do when they argue both sides of a question. It is what advertisers do to get people to buy junk they don't need. They aren't trying to find out what is true, they are trying to win.
Logic is different. It is designed to find out what is true and what isn't. It has rules that everyone, once they learn them, can share and understand. These rules let us learn things about the real world. A simple example of a logical rule is called modus tollens. In simplest terms it tells us that if we know a conditional is true, like, "If I had a big dinner then I'm no longer hungry" we can find out if I had a big dinner by finding out if I'm hungry.
In logic language it looks like:
Dinner->Not Hungry
If we then learned that I was still hungry, we'd know I didn't eat dinner. So:
Dinner->Not Hungry
Hungry
Therefore
Didn't have dinner
There are hundreds of such argument forms we can learn and they can help us maximize the knowledge we can infer from information available. They can also help us avoid the traps of the rhetoricians and advertising people who try and trick us. There is no reason we shouldn't teach logic in primary school. Or maybe there is one, it would take power away from the lawyers, politicians, and advertisers who use bad arguments to trick us.
I have a friend whose son learned logic in high school. I swiped his textbook.
That's excellent! I hope you logic as valuable and fascinating as I have. Not often a nice thing happens on the internet. Thank you.
I agree with this, you have to keep putting quality arguments out if you're capable of doing so. If you find that the person your debating isn't doing so in good faith then I make my points, note that I don't think this is a good faith debate and move on.
I suspect that a not insignificant %, tough to know exactly, of the leading woke activists who are pushing the illiberal arguments are doing so in bad faith as an attempt to increase their personal power and status. If benefits accrue to those they supposedly speak for actually happen, great, but that's not their main purpose.
Most of the followers of these leaders seem to be cowed by fear, well-intentioned but uneducated on the details or true believers. They are the ones who really need to see the arguments being made because many more ppl fall in the first two categories than do in the latter.
*typo, you're in the 2nd sentence. I know how ppl are about that, I might get canceled... haha
Is it possible that an even bigger issue than making sure people are able to see through weak logic like ad hominem attacks, is doing a better job of persuading people of the value of debate, and of being open minded? Which may not be best accomplished by debate.
Confusion arises because so much "argument" nowadays is really just a variety of advertising, of campaigning for or cheering on a particular point of view. It's not that people don't realize ad hominem attacks are bad logic. It's that they aren't really trying to convince anyone on the other side, they are just preaching to the cheering choir. And the choir really likes ad hominem attacks! It is like cheering for a sports team.
So sure, keep arguing, and argue well. But also stop talking so much, listen more. After all, on issues you are sure about, don't kid yourself - you're really advertising or campaigning, and debate isn't always the most effective way to campaign.
Excellent article. A timely and good reminder for things to watch out for in Friday's debate between Niall Ferguson and Yascha Mounk.
Enjoyed reading the article and the comments. I can't recall, did Hobbs ever win a game?
There are many good points in the article and the framing I think is brilliant. In the concluding remarks it's stated that likely, good arguments will eventually win. "Calvinists" will turn into good "Catholics" as the years go by. If it's likely that good arguments will eventually prevail then it means that it's likely that some good arguments will eventually lose, since we are not certain all good arguments will inevitably persuade 100 % of the human population from a certain point in time and then ad aeternum.
What do we mean by "good arguments will likely eventually win"? Does it mean it's uncertain how long it will take for a good argument to win, but given infinite time it will likely win if there is someone using those arguments at any given point in time? And by winning do we mean a narrow majority that's persuaded and will remain so forever? Do we have an example of such an argument that has already won?
It seems that we can't persuade people on all issues, but will have too lose some of the debates. Perhaps then we should focus our truthing on the most important issues and lose the less important ones. It also seems that we will have to keep making good arguments forever, while risking short-term loses that might make life miserable for an indefinite period. Perhaps when the earth has become uninhabitable the last people to perish will have been persuaded by the good arguments albeit too late. A noble goal has been reached, but the spoils of victory will not be enjoyed for long.
How can we end the Rhetorical Calvinball short and long term?
Senior golfers (like me) bend the rules. We give each other 5 foot putts, tee the ball up in the grass and, generally, cheat according to our age. But on a professional level the rules of golf are applied religiously, and they work universally well on courses that vary in myriad ways. There is no profound truth here. Simply, pros don’t play against each other. They play against the course, just as a good debater plays against the argument. And this you can only do only if you listen carefully, and respect, your opponent. But that is so, so hard to do when human nature is the playing field we walk out onto day by day. This view leads me to wondering at times what good debaters might do with the question: “ Was the philosophy of Jesus basically flawed?”
There is one thought I would like to offer... and can perhaps usefully frame why this current climate is so difficult to navigate. Calvin and Hobbes can at least agree that they are playing Calvinball...
Perhaps the problem is that the debate game is often the wrong game to play. I prefer the constructive dialogue game. Debate is a zero sum game in many cases. It ensures entrenched conflict. Constructive dialogue is positive sum. If I’m 70% right and you’re 20% right, debate might let me “win”, but I’m still left with just 70%. With constructive dialogue, we might both get to 90%. More importantly, if we can add players and build on the 90%, even if they have less than 90% to add. With debate, the maximum outcome is merely the maximum that any one player might already possess.