Argumentation and Regulating Tone

[Chris.S]

I've recently been in a few discussions about Canadian health care and sustainable development. I'm also currently in a philosophy course entitle "Introduction to Critical Thinking". What I've discovered is that I might come off as harsh in arguments, enough that people disregard what I'm saying because of how I say it. I think I'm just very direct, but my wife said that sometimes I can just rub people the wrong way.

So what I came here to ask is, how do others regulate their tone of voice or word usage in an argument to increase the effectiveness of their argument? Part of the mark for the Critical Thinking class is a series of group debates where groups are given a topic and have a week to prepare arguments for, against, or alternatives, but we must be prepared to argue either side. Yesterday, I was told that my argument against my school selling only organic food wasn't "politically correct" (it had to do with the school making profit). How do you make an argument easy to understand yet effective without coming off as harsh or something?

[MichaelH]

I've recently been in a few discussions about Canadian health care and sustainable development. I'm also currently in a philosophy course entitle "Introduction to Critical Thinking". What I've discovered is that I might come off as harsh in arguments, enough that people disregard what I'm saying because of how I say it. I think I'm just very direct, but my wife said that sometimes I can just rub people the wrong way.

So what I came here to ask is, how do others regulate their tone of voice or word usage in an argument to increase the effectiveness of their argument? Part of the mark for the Critical Thinking class is a series of group debates where groups are given a topic and have a week to prepare arguments for, against, or alternatives, but we must be prepared to argue either side. Yesterday, I was told that my argument against my school selling only organic food wasn't "politically correct" (it had to do with the school making profit). How do you make an argument easy to understand yet effective without coming off as harsh or something?

There are two aspects to rubbing people the wrong way.

The first is how you present your ideas and your arguments. You may already do this, but make sure your arguments address the facts and not the person. (For instance, "That's wrong because..." instead of "You're wrong because...") Also, make sure to listen to the other person and fully understand what they are saying before responding. Other people in debates/arguments will become very upset if they think you're not listening.

The second is people being offended by your ideas. If this is hurting your grades in the class, you can choose ideas you think will be better received. (You're not required to hurt yourself via grades by pushing Objectivist ideas where you will be punished.) In the broader sense, there's not much you can do. You can find someone who is offended by literally any position you take.

[bluecherry]

Are you speaking directly to anybody in the debating or are these just prepared statements you have to read off with no chance to interact with the opponent? As far as not coming off too harshly, an obvious one that has probably already occurred to you is not raising your voice too much as that may make you seem angry or like you are trying to drown out opposition rather than answer it. If you can converse with the opposition, you may have some success using the Socratic method since when people come up with answers themselves they are less likely to just dismiss them. Beyond that, I don't have much for specific things to do with your speech, but depending on how much interaction you can have with the opposition, it may help to keep some things in mind when formulating the presentation of your arguments and delivering them which may make specifics of what to do flow from them more easily. 1) See if you can make sure the opposition feels they are being spoken to as opposed to at. Try to engage specifics that they raise or at least which would commonly be cited by people with that position rather than just making statements without regard to what they may be concerned about which stands between them and already believing your position. Even just taking the time to explain why some specific objection is really irrelevant would likely be not a bad idea to try. 2) Pretty much whatever it is you’re trying to get at, no, it is not just that obvious to everybody, no matter how much you may think it should be. There’s so many bad ideas floating around people all their lives that somebody raising what you may know to be poor objections, even being slow to give those objections up, is not necessarily a sign that somebody is just stupid or trying to be evasive. They may just be honestly confused and want to make absolutely certain they've covered all the bases before accepting a new position as correct. So, as long as you don't think the other people are hopeless wastes of time, try to seem sincerely interested in helping them to learn rather than being out to be condescending and look down on some incompetent peons.

[Dr Chiill]

The best way to question teachers, is to ask innocent sounding questions, in an innocent tone. The key being that the question completely and utterly destroys everything they have said for the last hour. It makes professors squirm, its great!

[DavidOdden]

Part of the mark for the Critical Thinking class is a series of group debates where groups are given a topic and have a week to prepare arguments for, against, or alternatives, but we must be prepared to argue either side. Yesterday, I was told that my argument against my school selling only organic food wasn't "politically correct" (it had to do with the school making profit).

The first part makes perfect sense: it boils down to the perfectly reasonable requirement that you actually learn the arguments of the opposition. If it was just some kid off the street telling you that your argument was "politically incorrect", well, you can ignore those sorts of emotional outbursts. If the teacher is telling you that, then the teacher apparently doesn't understand the supposed intent of the class.

Facts can be harsh. In a rational debate, you can let the facts speak sharply, and it is right and proper that you ask questions which, if answered honestly, would expose the true nature of your opponent's position. Of course, most "debates" and exercises in so-called critical thinking these days are not part of rational discourse, they are dogmatically guided polemic exercises.

[Chris.S]

I will say more when I have time later, but just wanted to drop in and say thanks for the help so far.

[Chris.S]

Ok, so I do understand the point of preparing arguments for and against some proposition, but what if the proposition for just isn't defensible? You would have to do some sort of rationalization to defend it.

Specifically, my debate topic is: "be it resolved that [school] should serve only organic and local foods"

Arguing against that is easy - the school should do whatever is in the best interests of itself in making a profit and providing education (my actual proposition against is more detailed).

Arguing for it, I had to come up with this: "As an educational institution labeled and marketed specifically for

Toronto as "The City College", [school] should rent its food retail space to local and organic food vendors to promote the health and well-being of its students and local economy."

Is this the standard for debates? I ask because this is my first ever real debate.

DO, we do have to come up with evidence and facts and derive our propositions from there. But in this case, and in the other debate topics, it just seems that the "for" position can be demolished by sticking to individual rights and LFC. But I'm not quite sure what you mean by "dogmatically guided polemic exercises".

But anyways, I've gone over my previous arguments (which were outside of class anyway) and I think it's just that people are evading or just not understanding where I'm coming from with Oist ethics. I'm going to continue my normal thing and see what happens during the in-class debate and after that see how to get better if needed.

Thanks for the tips, everybody

[DavidOdden]

Is this the standard for debates?

Yes, you are supposed to put forth the best argument you can for either conclusion. Of course the arguments on one side will often be lame; however, they don't have to be predictably lame. An unpredictably lame argument can win, if your opponent is not prepared.

But I'm not quite sure what you mean by "dogmatically guided polemic exercises".

Often, so-called "critical thinking" exercises reduce to Socratic coaching sessions on the rhetoric of a particular side of the issue. Frame assertions as questions and encourage those students who give the politically correct responses, and you can easily convey a particular position while making it appear to be a "discussion" that requires you to think.

[MichaelH]

Ok, so I do understand the point of preparing arguments for and against some proposition, but what if the proposition for just isn't defensible? You would have to do some sort of rationalization to defend it.

Emotional arguments can be persuasive as well.

Think of the arguments you would most hate to defend against. (In this case, it might be, "But organic food saves the environment for the children! Don't you care about the children?") You can make a very powerful, if not very rational, argument using this technique. Even if you know the rational, appropriate response, you don't have to provide it. That job belongs to your debate opponent.

[Chris.S]

Emotional arguments can be persuasive as well.

Think of the arguments you would most hate to defend against. (In this case, it might be, "But organic food saves the environment for the children! Don't you care about the children?") You can make a very powerful, if not very rational, argument using this technique. Even if you know the rational, appropriate response, you don't have to provide it. That job belongs to your debate opponent.

I wish I could do that with a straight face - I'd end up laughing while saying it.