The Art of Disagreeing: Repect Even in Hostility

[Shamitako]

So I've been thinking a lot of thoughts and I felt like typing a few words about them

In particular, I've been thinking about disagreements, arguments

People are bound to disagree, we're all unique so it's going to happen. But it's possible to disagree without generating hate. I'm still friends with people who manage to like Dragon Ball Z and they're still friends with me despite my addiction to slice of life. Even when things are more serious than anime tastes, it's still possible to remain on good terms with people whom you disagree with

Note that I'll be talking a lot about disrespect, keep in mind that I'm not on the auth team so my definition of disrespect isn't required to be in line with Reborn's. This is my feelings on the matter, and based on my experiences I tend to be a bit stricter than the auth team in what I find to be disrespectful. At least when it comes to arguments

Also note that I'm hardly claiming to be perfect here, more often than not I fall on the side of a disrespectful disagreer. But as I'll mention later, I don't feel this should make my arguments in this thread invalid. EDIT: Owait, I didn't mention that (that was gonna be part of the debasing character comment thing) whoops

Now then, to start off, I've come to the conclusion that there's two primary ways you can disagree with someone: Respectfully and disrespectfully. These are primarily differentiated by the motive behind the disagreement. When disagreeing respectfully, one looks to understand the other side's point of view and learn about why they believe what they do. This doesn't mean there can't be any attempts to try to convince in a respectful disagreement, just that when trying to convince one should also be open to being convinced. When disagreeing disrespectfully, one looks to tear down the other side's argument or outright ignores it in an attempt to prove oneself right

Some common characteristics of a respectful disagreement are:

• Asking questions about what the other side thinks
• Admitting to arguments against one's own opinion holding water (even when one has prepared counters to these arguments)
• Admitting when one has made a mistake (such as misreading a sentence or stating something false as a fact)
• Accepting personal experience as evidence (provide counter evidence instead of discrediting the other side's evidence. This is the internet, not a courtroom)
• Never assuming that the other side understood you exactly as you did yourself
• Mentioning when you're not going to reply to a certain part of an opposing argument and providing a reason as to why so that the other party doesn't feel ignored
• Considering the other parties emotions as much as considering their logic. And also remembering that you have feelings too, not everything you say will be purely logical no matter how much you think so (Unless you're legitimately not human, in which case holy crap can I have your autograph? )

Some common characteristics of a disrespectful disagreement are:

• Completely discrediting any portion of the opposing argument you disagree with (by purposefully ignoring it or stating that you don't like it and thus refuse to take it into consideration. When in a position of power one can even choose to silence it)
• Picking specific pieces of an argument that are incorrect or that you can refute and discrediting their entire argument based on that
• Following from the above, searching only for contradictions or arguing semantics to discredit their entire argument
• Professional Arguing Skills as a weapon. Don't go looking for mistakes in how someone argues. Not everyone has spent years learning the nuances of a proper argument like you (and if you haven't dedicated your life to the study of argument and debate, then you really shouldn't be acting like you have) At best this makes you sound nitpicky and at worst it makes you sound like an asshole. Either way it seems like you don't respect the other person's right to disagree just because their arguing style isn't 100% perfect
• Attempting to debase the other side's character. I don't think I even need to explain how personal attacks don't belong in a respectful disagreement
• And most importantly, using the fact that you disagree with them on a fundamental level as a reason for why they are wrong. Not believing in grey morality when their argument is based in grey morality doesn't mean that you're right, it just means you don't understand where the other side is coming from. If you were making a respectful disagreement then you'd be listening to their argument in an attempt to understand the basis of it, not grabbing the base of the argument and flipping it on its head

At the end of the day, disagreements are about fundamentals and how people think. A respectful disagreer understands this. In a disagreement where all sides are respectful, they can passionately argue their point of view in the hopes of understanding one another better. And at the end of the day, both sides will have a slightly different opinion than when they started

But if even one party is disrespectful, inevitably the disagreement will fall into a loop of adamance where nobody understands anyone else any better. It is the irony of the human consciousness that in attempting to prove oneself completely and utterly right, one will inevitably end up doing quite the opposite. If you wish to convince someone of something, give them a chance to understand why you feel it's true

With hope,

Lexi

[Ironbound]

Good of you to set this down. While I'm a bit of a cynic, and believe that character is something that changes slowly if at all, I do think that it is good that you share your thoughts.

Having participated in oratory and debates quite a lot, I appreciate the importance of respectful disagreement... And have had to deal with many who believe volume or punishment to trump reason in an argument. It is sad, yes, but I think it is also a law of life that some are civil while others are brutish or crude in their interactions.

Like I said, I have my doubts regarding the ability of such a person to change their attitude merely by reading this, but I do believe that every little bit counts a little bit more towards hopefully teaching people to use their tongues wisely. Of course, if this is not intended to be didactic and is merely you sharing your opinion, I concur with you, and commend you for it.

Here's to hoping for more polite discussions.

[Shamitako]

Good of you to set this down. While I'm a bit of a cynic, and believe that character is something that changes slowly if at all, I do think that it is good that you share your thoughts.

Having participated in oratory and debates quite a lot, I appreciate the importance of respectful disagreement... And have had to deal with many who believe volume or punishment to trump reason in an argument. It is sad, yes, but I think it is also a law of life that some are civil while others are brutish or crude in their interactions.

Like I said, I have my doubts regarding the ability of such a person to change their attitude merely by reading this, but I do believe that every little bit counts a little bit more towards hopefully teaching people to use their tongues wisely. Of course, if this is not intended to be didactic and is merely you sharing your opinion, I concur with you, and commend you for it.

Here's to hoping for more polite discussions.

I confess to being a bit of a cynic myself. I don't really expect anyone to change just from this. But your statement of "every little bit counts" is pretty much exactly how I feel here. My belief is that people don't particularly change, but they have the capacity for many different ways of being themselves. So if someone who is usually very disrespectful in an argument sees this and has the capacity to not be so disrespectful, it's not implausible that this might nudge them a version closer to that which knows respect

If nothing else, writing this down has helped me reflect on times where I have been disrespectful during arguments

[Ironbound]

Indeed, as you say, it is a good thing to share this, both for oneself and for the community at large.

Disrespect is in many ways. Some show it crudely by yelling or hounding a person. Others show it cruelly by poking and prying away into a statement to pick out every single word as a weapon. Others do it venomously with backstabbing and toxic words. Others still do it in a delicate and refined manner, be it an adroit change of subject or a simple ignore.

However, all of the above are disrespectful of even one's opponents. I don't expect there to be code of conduct for argumentative folk, but here's to hoping that civility and compassion can be engendered in them, somehow.

[Gaunt]

Disrespect is my favorite topic (after videogames, manga, anime, music, religion debates, exc...well it's in the top 10) now if i may point out something (see here i'm already using my Professional Arguing Skills):

1) The second point in the first list. Why should we admit that the opponent argument is "true" when (as you stated) we have counters to it?

2) Fourth point first list. Personal (or any) experience is evidence only when documented, replicated and/or proven to be true by other means (otherwise for example we should all believe the people who say that they speak with gods/demons/spaghetti flying monsters on a daily basis).

3) Second list second (and by extent third) point. So...basically what i'm doing right now? Naaa your list is pretty good and i more or less agree with it (except the parts i don't) now my question is why? Why shouldn't we use the errors of our opponents to "win" the argument/debate? Isn't that the whole point of arguing? To prove that you're right and the other person is wrong? I don't see a reason for (shooting in my foot like) that except to be "nicer" to the other party (and that isn't something i really care about).

Now i'm sorry for nitpicking so much (i reeealy like to do it) but as i said your argument is (for the most part) valid imo. The problem is that i never ever once in my life saw an "argument" that didn't include any of your "wrong" points so...yeah we have much to improve.

[Ironbound]

It's not that we must accept a point that we know is incorrect or to which we have counters. It also does not imply that we believe whatever is said to us, nor that we must not use our tools to counteract a statement.

It merely means that we should be civil if not polite at the very least in our refusals or corrections. I too am now correcting your point based on my opinion and understanding, but am I doing it roughly? I should hope not.

We are more than beasts because we do not settle our differences with fangs and snarls. That's all that the OP meant to say, as far as I understand it.

I suppose to put simply, it's just the art of saying 'No', politely, Intelligently and above all whilst keeping an open mind.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Viridescent

[Ice Cream Sand Witch]

• (Unless you're legitimately not human, in which case holy crap can I have your autograph? )

I'm an ice cream sand witch. Here's my autograph.

[Felicity]

Don't be a colossal twatbasket.

[Shamitako]

@Gaunt

1) The second point in the first list. Why should we admit that the opponent argument is "true" when (as you stated) we have counters to it?

I didn't say to treat it as true. I said to treat it as a reasonable and legitimate argument. Just because I have counter-arguments prepared for when someone tries to explain to me why Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the "truth" doesn't mean I should treat it as anything less than a legitimate scientific theory

2) Fourth point first list. Personal (or any) experience is evidence only when documented, replicated and/or proven to be true by other means (otherwise for example we should all believe the people who say that they speak with gods/demons/spaghetti flying monsters on a daily basis).

And yes, you should accept the opinion of someone who claims to speak to a god or demon on a daily basis as equivalent to any facts you might try to argue by. If you're disagreeing respectfully then you're attempting to learn about the other person's point of view. If you discredit their experiences in life that's akin to discrediting them as having a valid PoV which completely defeats the point

3) Second list second (and by extent third) point. So...basically what i'm doing right now? Naaa your list is pretty good and i more or less agree with it (except the parts i don't) now my question is why? Why shouldn't we use the errors of our opponents to "win" the argument/debate? Isn't that the whole point of arguing? To prove that you're right and the other person is wrong? I don't see a reason for (shooting in my foot like) that except to be "nicer" to the other party (and that isn't something i really care about).

No, arguing is not about winning. Winning an argument accomplishes nothing (as I'm sure I've said many times, this isn't a courtroom, only humans talking to other humans about human issues). If you're arguing to win then all you're doing is spreading anger and hatred. You will never convince anyone of anything by arguing to win, because all you will be doing is tearing them down. The best you're going to do is boost your own ego. And if the only way to manage that is by tearing down someone else then you really need to think about how your ego became so fragile

Really this entire thread boils down to my attempt to voice the futility of "winning" an argument. On the internet and in much of daily life, an argument is between two people who have differing opinions built on different foundations. Trying to uproot that foundation is pointless, at best you can destroy what stands above it. But an argument conducted to try to understand that foundation can help reinforce your own building by learning about how the opposing side constructed theirs

[Gaunt]

@Gaunt

I didn't say to treat it as true. I said to treat it as a reasonable and legitimate argument. Just because I have counter-arguments prepared for when someone tries to explain to me why Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the "truth" doesn't mean I should treat it as anything less than a legitimate scientific theory

And yes, you should accept the opinion of someone who claims to speak to a god or demon on a daily basis as equivalent to any facts you might try to argue by. If you're disagreeing respectfully then you're attempting to learn about the other person's point of view. If you discredit their experiences in life that's akin to discrediting them as having a valid PoV which completely defeats the point

No, arguing is not about winning. Winning an argument accomplishes nothing (as I'm sure I've said many times, this isn't a courtroom, only humans talking to other humans about human issues). If you're arguing to win then all you're doing is spreading anger and hatred. You will never convince anyone of anything by arguing to win, because all you will be doing is tearing them down. The best you're going to do is boost your own ego. And if the only way to manage that is by tearing down someone else then you really need to think about how your ego became so fragile

Really this entire thread boils down to my attempt to voice the futility of "winning" an argument. On the internet and in much of daily life, an argument is between two people who have differing opinions built on different foundations. Trying to uproot that foundation is pointless, at best you can destroy what stands above it. But an argument conducted to try to understand that foundation can help reinforce your own building by learning about how the opposing side constructed theirs

1) It is not legitimate nor reasonable if we have proof against it so why should we treat it as such? Or is it again about "being nice"?

2) I cannot accept a supernatural phenomenon as true without any tangible proof that's just how i am.

3) Again we disagree, for most people (me included) arguing is about proving you're right and the opposite side is wrong (aka "winning"). Arguing (to win) does not automatically spread anger and hatred from what i've experienced so i don't really understand why you think it does.

4) Winning an argument is never futile, other than boosting your ego (which is important for some) it can also have other advantages like (for example) a prize (monetary or not).

In conclusion: our point of view on this topic is more divergent than i thought but look we're arguing (i'm obviously trying to "win") and no anger or hatred around...feels nice.

[Tomas Elliot]

Your arguments are shit fuck you I hate you Well this is a very clever topic, and the OP makes some intelligent posts. However, I see a fatal flaw: here we are having a DISCUSSION about proper etiquette in a debate. But those who don't bother with etiquette in a debate, and simply resort to, well, "your arguments are shit fuck you I hate you", are often those who are not interested in having a discussion, and prefer to use the internet just for the sake of insulting others. And if such people are not interested in having a discussion, then it follows logically that they wouldn't read this topic: therefore, this topic is destined to fail at its intended goal IMO, because while it aims to educate people, it is going to be read only by those who were educated to begin with. Let's be honest here: most internet trolls make it a point of not reading any post that is longer than 3 lines (the infamous "tl;dr" people), I cannot imagine them sitting through Lexi's arguments, smart as they might be.

[Ironbound]

Precisely. However, it is still better than not existing, if only to be a morale-booster for those who want to believe that at least one person who happens to see this might learn some tiny thing from it.

Like I said, better if a nice thing exists and is ignored, than if it didn't exist at all, if no resources are expended on its maintenance or existence. Cost vs anticipated benefit, really: zero cost to exist for even zero benefit is still viable enough to validate its existence.

[Shamitako]

4) Winning an argument is never futile, other than boosting your ego (which is important for some) it can also have other advantages like (for example) a prize (monetary or not).

In conclusion: our point of view on this topic is more divergent than i thought but look we're arguing (i'm obviously trying to "win") and no anger or hatred around...feels nice.

Apologies, because I only have the energy to reply to a small portion of your post and it is unlikely I will get around to replying to the rest in the future (for reasons which shall be stated shortly)

I'm not talking about being in courtroom or a debate club or whatever place where the goal is to be the better arguer (keep in mind that these are about how you argue, not whether you're actually right... Which is one of the big frustrations for many when it comes to the court system in the US). I'm just talking about life and people having differing opinions. And again, if the only method you have for boosting your self-esteem is by tearing into other people, you need to seriously evaluate how it got to be so low

I mean, I'm certainly frustrated that you only seem to care about proving me wrong. I could certainly make the same approach and I would be very surprised if you were not frustrated in return. And in fact, knowing myself, if this continues on then I inevitably will do so and we'll both end up very upset with each other and have accomplished nothing. So I'm simply going to bow out of this particular disagreement now before it gets out of hand

[Felicity]

Being proven wrong is never fun. Especially when you refuse to accept you're wrong.

[Chase]

As someone who is a significant proponent of argument there are a couple of things that often -do- matter when it comes to the importance of winning - however, these are not to say that winning the argument is important in -most- cases. It really depends on the type of argument that is being made.

• Validation. In the example of a right-or-wrong argument, the party that is arguing on the side of righteousness (with regards to correctness) is doing their absolute best to win the argument to avoid doubt being cast on the correct.
• Defense. Often used by the defending counsel in court cases, the point of winning the argument in that scenario is to defend a point of view from potentially consequential scrutiny.
• Degree of logic. Winning an argument here consists of defending the possibility of something in logical terms. It doesn't determine truths, but it eliminates conceptions of impossibility.
• Truth-seeking. Again used in court cases most prominently, although considerably employed by both the defense and the prosecution. This seeks to determine the facts, and a winning argument here hopefully establishes truths and lies.

That being said, there are things that are often ignored by those who are most enthused by winning.

• Winning an argument in any setting doesn't necessarily -mean- that the debater was on-target or right, and this causes some misleading as a result.
• Winning an argument being the point of engagement disregards the ability to outright communicate in several scenarios, such as what we see in democratic governments across the world.
• Winning an argument without making concessions or apologizing for poor form makes one hard to work with, and often doesn't result in progress being made.

Argument is an inevitable part of communication because it's deeply tied to disagreement, which is also largely inevitable. Used in the right ways, it can cause people to unify to solve problems and it can broaden horizons for further research. Abused, and it results in splintered relations with your colleagues and the opposite of progress being made.

The most important aspect of argument is never winning, it's solving a problem and bringing new knowledge to light.

[Commander]

I suppose I should step in a bit and say a couple things. First and foremost, I don't really like arguing and debating that much, but usually I just say my point and kind of get set aside (though I've had plenty of moments where I've been right, though I've been wrong before and admit to it). That's not the big thing as there are two big issues I see on reborn when it comes into an debate/arguement:

1. After making a point, I've seen a few users, not giving names, end up responding again in which they just reiterate the information they said before usually in which it just doesn't add to the argument.

2. People aren't willing to listen to the other side and consider their views.

These two points go hand and hand which kind of makes debates not that fun. Usually, you can make your point and claims in a single post and should really only rebuttal if it adds to the discussion. I don't think it's as much a disrespect problem as much as people going a bit too far. Just my thoughts so take them as you will.

[Halloween]

several of the points raised, both in the original post and in the comments, they vary with the nature of the argument, no? even if we're speaking about daily conversations, there's:

a) we're talking about whenever we should have pizza or sushi for dinner. the conversation must reach a conclusion, either somebody wins, or we compromise with thai food. personal experiences/emotional arguments (i think, this happened, i feel) have a high value.

we're arguing about whenever character A-san or B-san is superior. winning is unimportant (nobody expects the other to go "OH i understand now! oh man my taste has been shit up until now"), and personal experiences/emotional arguments still have a high value.

c) i'm trying to convince you that santa claus is totes real. personal experiences/emotional arguments have relatively low value 'cause you aren't buying "but i saaww him in the mall", and as in b, the goal is progression rather than winning.

d) we're developing a project, and have to limit ourselves to one idea. somebody has to win, and what anybody personally feels is irrelevant to whenever it's the idea that is the most feasible.

e) sander vs trump. nobody's going to win, but emotional arguments still doesn't matter shit, and the point is just to make an as massive fact dump disproving each others arguments as possible.


and i'm getting the impression that this thread is about friendly arguments about differing opinions - emotional debates -, not about situations where the goal is to prove the other part wrong - such as, political debates, right? in that case, i've actually gone a course that relates at least to discussion, so susan a. weelan, author of a fucking shitton of really boring teambuilding books, would (probably) wanna add that "yes, and–" is a great thing to build a discussion on.

she had to lot to say about feedback, would that be a good thing to get into here, or are we purely talking arguments?

and i agree with you! not necessarily here, but on the internet overall i see what you're talking about - an unnecessary anger in inconsequential discussions

[Shamitako]

and i'm getting the impression that this thread is about friendly arguments about differing opinions - emotional debates -, not about situations where the goal is to prove the other part wrong - such as, political debates, right? in that case, i've actually gone a course that relates at least to discussion, so susan a. weelan, author of a fucking shitton of really boring teambuilding books, would (probably) wanna add that "yes, and–" is a great thing to build a discussion on.

Well, I was referring to emotional debates. However in my experience political debates (even on a national level >_>) tend to be emotional debates

But yes, what kind of disagreement does matter. There are cases where an answer must be decided upon and someone must be deemed right while another wrong. Those are the cases where a formal debate (you'll note my intentional avoidance of the word "debate" as often as possible, because I feel that word brings to mind the concept of a formal argument) matters and winning becomes the focus. In these cases you're generally not trying to convince your opponent of your point but the people around you (a courtroom has a jury, a debate club has a judge, politicians have voters, etc). This thread was purely referring to disagreements between two peers. I suppose I should have clarified that better originally, my apologies

[Halloween]

Well, I was referring to emotional debates. However in my experience political debates (even on a national level >_>) tend to be emotional debates

yaah... it's like one of the candidates, no names mentioned, is winning on the argument "we don't need a solution to our problems, we need a scapegoat." and it's terrifying to see how that seems to be going on in all the countries with a sudden influx of syrian refugees as well - the UK has UKIP, Germany has Alternative für Deutschland, Sweden has Sverigedemokraterna, Norway has Fremskrittspartiet and the Netherlands has the hilariously named Party for Freedom.

but that's ot welp

but yeah i guess i saw an issue with this when i first read it too; "what? i'm not supposed to present arguments that i have?" 'cause most of my friendly arguments start with a cockfight on who can drag up the most relevant information dump from wikipedia to form a pseudo-coherent smackdown and end in a nerf gun fight.

there's an expression where i come from that i think applies to us, even only one person in my friends cycle is a engineer: "starting an argument with an engineer is like mud-wrestling with a pig - after a while you realize that the pig likes it."

but that shit does not have a place in conversations like "reborn live action! does Michael Cena or Justin Bieber make the better Fern". i think it's clear that the thread is about disagreements between peers, but perhaps not about the nature of the disagreements.

[Ironbound]

Hahahahahahaha, I know that pig mud-wrestling joke, only with a Lawyer, because Engineers hereare mostly seen as machines who don't really enjoy anything.