That really is the crux of the problem, isn’t it? I think it’s important to distinguish between two types of arguments, each with a profoundly different goal:
To persuade the person you’re arguing with,
To persuade the bystanders watching a public argument.
If your goal is (1), then the method I would go with is to pick one really good argument and push it hard. Take whatever is your strongest argument, and throw all your weight behind it. When the other guy comes up with a weak rebuttal, just quickly point out the flaw in it and reiterate your central point. Don’t let him squirm out, except through your line of retreat. Another thing that can help here is Socratically asking questions that expose the weak points in his beliefs. That tends to throw people off balance and help you seize the initiative. (Obviously, if the person you’re arguing with makes actual good points, listen. Stay away from the Dark Side.)
If your goal is (2), convincing bystanders, then it’s much easier. People passively watching others argue are not going to get as strongly attached to one of the sides right off the bat. They can be swayed much more easily than people actually arguing. What you need to do here is make yourself an attractive side to the bystanders. Try to be funny and charming, and trip up the person you’re arguing with. Bring out a few zingers; ask questions that the other guy isn’t expecting; and always, always be calm and collected. People like to follow a strong leader. Even the ones who will never join your side can be made embarrassed to speak up. And that’s victory, of a sort, if the view you’re arguing with is really repugnant.
This all sounds kind of contemptuous, doesn’t it? I think it’s true, though.
Have you really succeeded at type 1 situations this way? I’ve found that making my own counterarguments works better than arguing one-sidedly; the trust I build by raising my own objections helps them really listen when I counter them.
I have managed to get people to switch to marginally less ridiculous views, yes. It’s limited success, but still impressive considering how hard it is to get people to change their minds at all.
Your approach may work better, though. It certainly sounds plausible. I’ll have to try that next time I’m in a type 1 argument.
That really is the crux of the problem, isn’t it? I think it’s important to distinguish between two types of arguments, each with a profoundly different goal:
To persuade the person you’re arguing with,
To persuade the bystanders watching a public argument.
If your goal is (1), then the method I would go with is to pick one really good argument and push it hard. Take whatever is your strongest argument, and throw all your weight behind it. When the other guy comes up with a weak rebuttal, just quickly point out the flaw in it and reiterate your central point. Don’t let him squirm out, except through your line of retreat. Another thing that can help here is Socratically asking questions that expose the weak points in his beliefs. That tends to throw people off balance and help you seize the initiative. (Obviously, if the person you’re arguing with makes actual good points, listen. Stay away from the Dark Side.)
If your goal is (2), convincing bystanders, then it’s much easier. People passively watching others argue are not going to get as strongly attached to one of the sides right off the bat. They can be swayed much more easily than people actually arguing. What you need to do here is make yourself an attractive side to the bystanders. Try to be funny and charming, and trip up the person you’re arguing with. Bring out a few zingers; ask questions that the other guy isn’t expecting; and always, always be calm and collected. People like to follow a strong leader. Even the ones who will never join your side can be made embarrassed to speak up. And that’s victory, of a sort, if the view you’re arguing with is really repugnant.
This all sounds kind of contemptuous, doesn’t it? I think it’s true, though.
Have you really succeeded at type 1 situations this way? I’ve found that making my own counterarguments works better than arguing one-sidedly; the trust I build by raising my own objections helps them really listen when I counter them.
I have managed to get people to switch to marginally less ridiculous views, yes. It’s limited success, but still impressive considering how hard it is to get people to change their minds at all.
Your approach may work better, though. It certainly sounds plausible. I’ll have to try that next time I’m in a type 1 argument.