Being from the social media generation I have an active Facebook presence. When the sandy hook gun ban scare was going around, well we all know how people love to spout off on the internet. I'd defend gun ownership in the most based logical way I could when I got the chance but more often than not was faced with the usual "plug my ears and close my eyes I know I'm right" strategy. I think I can count one instance someone cared enough to listen to me and even still they closed with "I understand why these things have a use but they should still be banned."
Lately I've stopped bothering. I feel I'm wasting my time and energy trying to chance someone's mind that's already made up. Seems my effort is better spent with those on the fence open to a real discussion and to writing congress.
Thought on this?
"Arguing" is a losing proposition. It's not that you won't have valid points that you cannot get across effectively...it's that the PROCESS of arguing is itself polarizing. Argue with someone and they automatically dig their heels in, which makes it more difficult.
"Debating" or, better yet, "discussing" is another matter. You have to learn to work around the conflict-ridden "argument" aspect in order to present things in a more conducive manner. And part of this has to do with the receptiveness of your audience. If they're not receptive, then perhaps simply diffusing the situation and avoiding it altogether is the best option, until you can control the field better.
How you approach individuals depends on their personality, the circumstances, and whether or not they're part of a crowd. One-on-one dynamics is radically different than one-on-group or group-on-group dynamics. Too many variables and too much opportunity to side-swipe events as you increase the number of participants.
If the person is someone you know or are friends with, then the dynamics also change as compared to strangers.
If you want an INTELLIGENT discussion, then keeping your cool is an absolute must...along with respect and not BSing people. And try to keep the numbers of people involved to a bare minimum. Choose your point and keep the discussion focused on that point, not allowing it to wander off into whatever other shiney-object topic.
The most fatal errors people make about such debates are:
1. Getting involved with an actively hostile group or individual.
2. Getting involved when there is a participating audience supporting the opposition.
3. Not keeping the subject limited in focus, both for yourself and your opponent.
4. Not picking their battle(s): as in trying to defend/support too much or too many points of view.
5. Not treating your opponent with dignity and respect, even if you vehemently disagree. This implies listening to THEIR concerns and viewpoints and dealing with them as if they're important...because they ARE important to THEM.
6. Not picking a topic with which you are adequately conversant with.
If you debate effectively, you win lots of little battles, which in turn add up to a greater victory AND increased respect. Even if you don't win something outright, it's still a great victory to have your opponent walk away from the discussion respecting you afterwards. It's an open door for the future.
