When Discussing Topics, Raise Logical Arguments, Not Voices

Even though one of the definitions of "argue" is "yelling loudly at another person to make a point," doing that in an honest debate serves only to establish that the person has nothing new to add and refuses to acknowledge that which other people have added. It is an archaic ritual where the loudest and scariest prove dominance over those who thereafter are proven to be inferior. However, intellectual arguments do not require the raising of voices; they require raising factual arguments to put forth logical conclusions. 

The problem is more complex than people simply not knowing how to discourse a subject due to it being a lost art. We have become polarized in our opinions. This creates a situation that one either accepts fully one set of arguments with the only alternative to fully accepting an opposing set of arguments. In reality, taking some arguments from both sides may provide a better solution to the problem being debated than taking the totality of arguments solely from either side. Not only might it create a better solution, taking other people's points-of-view into account is the definition of compromise. 

Despite that compromise is the reflection of giving everyone's points-of-view some relevance, some points-of-views don't deserve recognition in conclusions. This is where binary comes into play in debates. When binary is used to limit options for solutions, such as polarized topics, it is being used negatively. It is rather like an ultimatum in that if you don't take one side's full slate, then you must take the opposing side's full agenda.

Binary is properly used to eliminate possibility. If a necessary factor in an equation is "true," then it remains a possibility. If it is "false," that possibility is eliminated from consideration. Even if a theory is true in every other possible way, it cannot be the correct answer because of that necessarily true factor that is false. That is how deduction works. 

It isn't my fault that deductive reasoning will get better results than inductive reasoning, but it should be self-evident that it does. Deductive reasoning eliminates from all possibilities those that are not possible as each factor is considered. You can literally see this happening as each letter is inserted into a search with predictive possibilities. As a letter is applied that results in a "0" (zero) for any previous prediction it has made, that prediction is eliminated from possibility and replaced with something that has a "1" (one) for every key stroke to that point. 

If you understand that, you understand how binary properly works. From here out, all you need to do is think about it as you consider what is truth and what is fiction. Are all your factors "true," or are they debatable and "true from your perspective?" The latter should be up for intelligent debate and discussion. If you continue holding that perspective if it is proven to be false, then it is a prejudice and not truth.

The guess that the search is making for you as each keystroke is entered is inductive, but the inductive reasoning is limited to possibilities deducted by previous keystrokes. Deduction concludes that everything is possible except that which is impossible because of a factor that it doesn't have, but needs to have, to remain a possibility. 

Dale Carnegie said that no one wins an argument. He explained that each person comes away from an argument feeling even more entrenched in their ways of thinking. The better course is to discuss points of agreement and expand from those points. Each person then comes away with a different perspective and can gain knowledge from the civil discourse of explaining reasoning that may not have been considered.

However, when voices are raised to emphasize points that are proven to be false (think: "0"), then it is no longer an intellectual discussion. If both sides raise their voices, it is a shouting match and not a discussion at all. Sadly, both arguments are likely to contain factors that are true and factors that are false. Even sadder than that is the likelihood that both sides agree on which factors are true, and both are raising their voices over their prejudices. 

Whether the topic being discussed is a current event, or something more philosophical like universal construction, a disagreement of conclusions is generally found in a disagreement about one or more of the premises upon which the conclusion is based. For me, personally, one of the most difficult things about accepting new truth is having to give up some of my favorite prejudices to do so. 

I enjoy friendly conversations with people whose conclusions I disagree with. If I gain nothing else from the conversation, I try to understand why it is that they feel the way they do. If we can find the premise that we disagree upon, then we can ask each other questions to clarify points that we may not fully understand. My godbrother and cousin have enlightened me often on what I now see as truth. So, too, have many people who have brought forth points-of-view worthy of consideration. We may not have come away with agreement, but I came away with things to think about.

On the other hand, there are those who believe that their right to free speech means that others have the obligation to listen, even when a premise upon which the conclusion is based is disputed. For example, an intelligent friend of mine is having difficulty understanding that time does not toll at the speed of light. I tell him that it is counter intuitive. He says it defies common sense. I told him that we just said the same thing. 

The same material that I studied and thought about to gain an understanding about how this works is available to him, if he chose to learn how it works the same way that I learned how it works. I also referred him to things I have written on the topic so that we can either start with my conclusions or discuss his disagreements with my premises to see if we can reach either an agreement or understanding for the argument to be presented. 

If the disagreement, though, is that some time has to toll at the speed of light, then we've reached an intellectual impasse. It is fine if someone doesn't understand that, but it is not fine to argue that if I didn't understand it the same way they don't understand it, then I would understand that which I know is false. 

He doesn't raise his voice to prove a point. If we cannot agree on a premise, we tend to move onto another topic. Since we both lay our beliefs on the table, we have gained greater understanding about how we each see things. He has legitimately pointed out holes in my arguments, and I think I have persuaded him to see topics in ways that are easily stated and philosophically sound. 

One such simple statement helped him understand my opinion on women's reproductive rights: 

"I want my medical decisions to be made between me and my doctor, and my statement would not change if I were female." 

If we discuss the issue, that is the premise that we must discuss. A conclusion not based on that premise is carrying a zero factor with me. I just happen to see medical issues as medical issues and not as fodder for political polarity, and he now understands the premise on which I base that conclusion.