It's VITAL to maintain open and honest dialogue and to protect speech in all forms. Here and now is another speaker whose views and delivery I do not always agree with but when the tide of his invective recedes into logic and reason its more often that I do agree with him - or at least respect his dialogue attempt. In this case he addresses the paramount need to protect speech from those seeking to deny it.
Ben Shapiro was the former editor for Breitbart and now of the Daily Wire. He's an author and public speaker. He's a self identified Trump hater and conservative/Republican. His conversation style is laden with statistics and often harshly abrasive, things I don't much like in debates, but when his head is cool and he's focused on an unemotional point he's often right and I sometimes agree. I implore you to try to look past the emotional hyperbole and ad-hominem phraseology and find his more salient and succinct points. This clip was from, as the title suggests, his testimony before Congress on July 27, 2017.
As you hopefully know about me from previous pieces and even this one, I do not ascribe to emotional outbursts, name calling, and snide remarks. I don't find them helpful or particularly creative. That being said, when he DOES choose to be articulate, he can be quite interesting to listen to if you can keep up with his challenging and fast paced delivery.
A further complaint to his "style" of discourse that leads into my next point is his usual tactic of boiling down his "opponents" arguments and finding fault with what he believes is the core issue. This he then extrapolates and hyperbolizes in order to dismiss their argument because he "can" dismiss the person as being illogical and unreasonable. It's a fairly common tactic nowadays and it's not the way to gain ground with detractors. It's listening to answer instead of listening to understand - we should be honest in our attempts to respond with a proper representation of the positions we disagree with. If we are more interested in beating a person down that we are discoursing with than we are in having an actual CONVERSATION then I submit that there's more harm being done than good.
The words you use can also lead a discussion or be manipulative - even if that was not your intent. Leading a sentence with phrases like "...but don't you think..?" are an attempt to drag a subject along or force them to be contrary in order to distance themselves from your assertion. Ending or injecting into your point with verbal "check- points" are similar bits of manipulative wordplay but can also be just "filler" words like saying "um" (like I do) when you're searching for your next sentence. These verbal checkpoints are words like "right?" or "ok?" sometimes accompanied by an affirming head nod by the speaker. These words will be interspersed into an assertive or explanatory sentence which, while a potential knowledge check pause when giving factual opinion, can be more leading and arm twisting when utilized during a discussion/debate. They do not, in my opinion, lend themselves to an open and honest dialogue, especially if your intent IS to "win" by forcing a withdrawal and not discuss. If you're not already focused on NOT using these types of words or phrases it may be hard to do so; I recommend carefully listening for them when other people use them so you can note them more clearly and thus create a mental aversion to them. That mental aversion will assist you in NOT using them yourself. What other words/phrases like this can you think of?
Removing emotion from debate is something I've spoken about before but it bears repeating and emphasizing today, I think. As someone that nearly obsesses about that goal I ironically find it hard to put into words how to do it. I think the best way is to note which words/phrases create an emotional response in yourself and then not use them yourself. Any words or phrases that could be "triggering" in your "opponent" should be avoided if you truly want to debate and discuss the merits of a subject and not just devolve into ad hominem attacks. Name calling, sarcastic or sardonic tones, swear words, name calling (even if not directed at them directly this can have a negative effect on their own calm, thus a regressive tactic), and points that seek to hyperbolize or exaggerate should be avoided.
Just as we do not like our views being twisted and misrepresented or intentionally ignored we must not do the same to others. Challenge it if it's done to you (it may not have been intentional) in order to refocus a response, and try to be as clear speaking and honest about another person's views as you formulate a response to them. Ensure you fully understand their position and the fundamental reasons why before attempting to dismantle the foundation of it (with respect and reason). This calm questioning of their position allows them to (hopefully) calmly articulate their opinion and insert supporting facts. The more that is said the better you can understand their views and how to debate what you believe is incorrect and keeps YOU focused on the actual merits. If you cannot debate the core principles and merits but instead attack the person in order to create a "moral" victory you will not get very far in changing minds. If your response "feels" good and creates a wellspring of emotional response because you think it has powerfully inarguable tenants then you may want to reassess it to unload the emotion from it. Being correct with tact after a thorough understanding of what they believe and why is the way you change minds. Would you respond well to an emotional outburst and make you wish to change your mind? Would someone's irrational attacks make you think twice about your position? I may be going out on a limb here but I don't think so.
Ben Shapiro has a razor sharp intellect and as I said I agree with him on some things but his style of fast paced information overload while hyperbolizing and perhaps misrepresenting an opponent's position does him no favors. This is not to say we must exhaustingly stand to be harangued and battered by emotion laden verbal and pseudo-intellectual abuse in a debate - it can be hard to find the point at which departure is necessary and even harder to MAKE that decision but make it we must at times. It's better to walk away calmly than sink to that level and resort to harmful discourse tactics in my humble opinion.
Until next time,
-Ronin