We can debate issues without degrading each other's character.
Beware the sound of one hand clapping. Which was a way of saying if there's an argument on one side there's bound to be an argument on the other.
It's a funny thing that questions that aren't properly answered don't go away.
You might say, “Let’s identify the fundamental point on which we disagree.” It’s very striking when you do that because you find it’s hard to identify.
The difficulty comes when people have a hard time believing their opponents can argue in good faith. It’s probably not going to help if there are a lot of people watching. People tend to be more performative when there are people watching.
There’s a saying about the public arena: “control the vocabulary and you control the debate.” Words frame the issue; they are the vehicle for meaning and emotion. Some words are incendiary. Some words are empathetic.
Consider how often issues are framed with that polarized framework, an over-simplified model that positions people at extremes.
When the dynamics are more about the personalities than possibilities, and it becomes us vs. them, it is exhausting. You can spend a great deal of time on distractions that lead nowhere or wounds that don’t heal.
But when you let the different opinions debate, when any skeptic can perform his or her own experiment to check some contention out, then the truth tends to emerge.
The man who cannot listen to an argument which opposes his views either has a weak position or is a weak defender of it. No opinion that cannot stand discussion or criticism is worth holding.
And it has been wisely said that the man who knows only half of any question is worse off than the man who knows nothing of it. He is not only one sided, but his partisanship soon turns him into an intolerant and a fanatic. In general it is true that nothing which cannot stand up under discussion and criticism is worth defending.
Sophistry is only fit to make men more conceited in their ignorance.
I do not say this, that I think there should be no difference of opinions in conversation, nor opposition in men's discourses... 'Tis not the owning one's dissent from another, that I speak against, but the manner of doing it.
The Indians, whom we call barbarous, observe much more decency and civility in their discourses and conversation, giving one another a fair silent hearing till they have quite done; and then answering them calmly, and without noise or passion. And if it be not so in this civiliz'd part of the world, we must impute it to a neglect in education, which has not yet reform'd this antient piece of barbarity amongst us.
…if you are to fight these errors, you have to know the main arguments advanced in favor of them. You have to hear the Devil’s case, so to speak, presented as strongly as his case permits…You have to be sure you know on each issue what really is true and what is wrong with the arguments advanced for the erroneous position.
Deliberation and reasoned judgment require an atmosphere of restraint, an atmosphere of thoughtful disagreement...Deliberation without decorum is not deliberation at all. It is bickering.
Don't say you agree with me. When people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong.
"In a debate in which there are no shared standards, the loudest voice wins."
This simple formula—kindness, curiosity, common ground—will help you establish psychological safety. Once it’s clear you have safety, you can begin to disagree meaningfully.
When you disagree, try to really listen to the other person rather than setting up your response, which research shows smart people tend to do
We think you're wrong. You think we're evil! It's a big difference you Have to think we're evil because you don't argue with us So we must be dismissed as evil there. Why do they call us racist bigoted homophobic xenophobic and so on because they don't have arguments.
A wise man once told me, in a debate of ideas, when your opponent resorts to personal attacks, you’ve won the debate.