How to Argue Part II: The Man of Straw and Steel

Hello Steemians, this is part II of my posts about the fundamentals of argumentation and what you can do to have more constructive conversations.

Remember, the ideal practical outcome of an argument is that the people involved are satisfied with its resolution in the long run. The overarching ideal outcome is that the argument brings its participants closer to some essential truth of the matter at hand.

In part I, I outlined the importance of definitions as a way to map and restrain the argument so it flows steadily towards its target. Now I want to describe how to argue fairly. Why should fairness matter? Shouldn't the goal of an argument be to dominate the other and stand on their withering body as you proclaim victory? It's simple really, if you don't play a game by its rules, others won't want to play with you, or even worse, they'll disregard the rules and your interactions will descend into anarchy. This is a terrible way to maintain relationships, whether they are personal or professional.

One of the most common transgressions in arguments is when we employ the "straw-man" fallacy. This is when you take someone's position and simplify it to the point that it becomes a caricature of their thinking. In this way, their argument becomes weak and flimsy and therefore easy to topple.

This ego gratification is tempting but isn't helpful to you in the long run. Instead, there's a technique you can implement that will actually keep your "opponent" happy as well as strengthen your argument. This technique is called the "steel-man". It's essentially the opposite of the straw-man. Basically, before you speak your position, you have to articulate the other's position in such a way that they agree to the interpretation. To make your steel-man even more solid, you can strengthen the opposing position with anything you think they missed.

At first this may seem counter intuitive because the instinct to dominate is strong but creating a steel-man is better for a number of reasons.

It makes the other person relaxed and opens them up to further conversation. They'll feel as though they are being taken seriously and it's precisely because they are. This will avoid the trap of emotional reactions. Also, the person you're arguing with may not be as intelligent or articulate as you are. If you steel-man their position fairly you can help clarify their own thinking to themselves and it'll also make you reconsider their position once it is articulated. You can see that performing this technique holds benefits for the other person involved.

The benefits for you are of the ultimate value. It'll make you a fine tuned listener. In order to satisfactorily relay someone's argument back to them you need to take into account the nuances and subtleties of their position. Once this complexity is firmly grasped, you can develop even stronger points that will illuminate the weaknesses and contradictions in the opposing position. The other person will also have to think of a genuine rebuttal instead of emotionally reacting to the fact that their position was misunderstood.

Most importantly though, listening to someone sincerely forces you to contend not only with their thinking but you own. The weaknesses of your thinking will become obvious once you begin to take the depth and complexity of life seriously. This process is divinely useful because it means that contending with ideas at their deepest level brings you closer to others as well as yourself. With your inadequacies visible, you can take the steps to burn them away and come closer to truth.