1. Do your research. This should be obvious, right? Know what you are talking about.
But most arguments are lost simply because the person arguing the other side has a better command of the issue, a greater knowledge of the pertinent facts and principles. Anytime you have to say, "I'm not sure" or "I didn't know THAT," you have lost the argument. Anytime you must fall back on, "Well, that's just what I think and that's all there is to it," you've lost.
It's the most important lesson formal debaters must learn: Know the arguments of the other side as well as you know the arguments supporting your own case. When you discover a weakness in your argument, never ignore it in hopes that the other side won't have also discovered it. You have to be prepared for that weakness to be brought up, and you must have a cogent response.
In fact, doing that one thing -- destroying the opposition's greatest objection to your argument -- is the best guarantee you have of making your case.
That doesn't mean you have to know both sides of all arguments, research every nuance of every issue; no one could do that. And it certainly doesn't mean that on a particular issue that you are wrong and the other person right simply because you are being out-debated.
It's just a way for you to know when to keep pressing the point and when to back off, how to understand whether you are going to win or lose the argument.
2. Know what you're arguing. Most arguments are a disagreement about one of two things: facts or principles. You can get hopelessly lost in a debate if you are arguing over facts while the other person is relying on principles. And if you are arguing as a matter of principle while the other person is debating the facts, you will be equally confused.
Consider two people -- Ed and Al -- debating whether to spend the evening at a particular restaurant. Ed says he will never go to that restaurant again because the owner insulted him. Al keeps urging him to go because he's done the research and that restaurant has the best food, the lowest prices, the most convenient parking and on and on. Al is fighting a lost cause; Ed is basing his decision on a matter of principle, and all the facts in the world won't sway him. To win the argument -- to get Ed to eat in that restaurant -- he has to argue in the same arena as Ed, at the level of principle: "Look, I know you're angry, but haven't you always said to forgive and forget? Look how this grudge is eating away at you." About the only fact Al could offer that would work is: "Hey, I just found out that restaurant is under new ownership."
On the other hand, suppose you're trying to argue against gun control based on the principle that "the right to bear arms" is vital for a free people. Your opponent is arguing FOR gun control based on the facts that gun violence is increasing and innocent people are at ever-greater risk. For the argument to move forward, not keep spinning in circles, at some point you're going to have to forget principle and argue the facts, or your opponent must leave his fact-based case and argue principle with you. You might eventually discover that you have an unshakable principle and unassailable facts and each person must decide which to give the most weight. But you might also discover that your argument is merely a simple misunderstanding over facts or that the two sides indeed agree in principle.
Facts and principles alike can be attacked in one of two ways: that they're either wrong, or they are right but don't apply in this particular case. The "fact" that a majority of handgun deaths in America is tied to the drug trade either is or is not true and can be known. Even if true, how relevant is it to the gun-control debate? It's a little more difficult to argue that principles are not true, since they tend to be firmly-held beliefs rather than reasoned positions. But most of them can be shown to not always be applicable. Honesty is the best policy? Most of the time, perhaps, but what about the "little white lies" most of us have told to protect others' feelings? Human life is sacred? Surely. But how does that principle fit into the abortion debate or the death-penalty debate? How would war even be possible, for that matter, if we always followed that principle?
A special word of caution about one kind of fact: statistics. If you torture statistics, someone once said, they'll confess to anything. Statistics can be useful to help prove a point, but they can be so misused that you ought to be careful in employing them and on the alert when the other side trots them out. Consider just one example: A new report says that 12 people committed murder last year in a certain small town, up from 10 the year before that. If I wanted to downplay the issue, I could write that "there were only two more murders committed." If I wanted to be alarmist, however, I might write, "Murders are up an astounding 20 percent in one year!" By carefully choosing when and how to use raw numbers and when to use percentages, you can almost always use the same set of numbers to argue either side of the debate.
For much the same reason, care ought to be taken with public opinion polls as well. Even when it is valid to appeal to the masses (see the later entry on the ad populum fallacy), the numbers can be mangled and easily misused.
3. Don't let the other side set the agenda. Suppose you are a liberal or a conservative. Suppose someone wants to debate you about the validity of your philosophy, in these terms: Liberalism (or conservatism) will be the utter ruin of this country. Now, there is no way you can win a debate like that. Either your philosophy is discredited, in which case you lose, or it isn't, and the only thing you've achieved is a tie (since the other person didn't have to defend his philosophy). The other person can't lose -- he either wins or gets a tie. To level the playing field, you need to make sure the debate is framed in a more neutral way: "In the long run, will liberalism or conservatism serve this country better?"
4. Don't get distracted. Even when you're alone, writing your own arguments down on paper, you can get lost (see later section on logic faults). It's that much easier to go astray when you're in the middle of an argument with one or more debaters.
You're arguing over whether the U.S. should intervene in a certain country's civil war, and somebody brings up Vietnam and what a debacle that was, and before you know it you're in the middle of a discussion about how evil Richard Nixon was. Or you're debating the merits of daylight-saving time and somebody says, "Oh, it's the farmers who are blocking it," then somebody else says, "But my uncle was a farmer, and they've got it hard," and then you're off on a tangent about what a great book "Grapes of Wrath" was. Always be ready to say, "That's all very interesting, but it's not what we're talking about; let's get back to the point." Be especially careful when someone launches into a personal anecdote; nine times out of 10, you're about to be derailed. 5. Know where everyone is coming from.
At some point in an argument, it is useful to ask, "What exactly would you like to see happen?" Despite the contentious arguments over most issues of the day, people usually have remarkably similar goals, even if they disagree on how to get there. People on all sides of the abortion debate probably agree, for example, that reducing unwanted pregnancies should be a goal. People on all sides of the big government-small government debate would probably agree that a healthy economy is a worthy objective. Knowing everyone wants to achieve the same end can help focus the debate on means. On the other hand, knowing people have different ends in mind helps you know that debating the means is futile. If half the people in a criminal-justice debate want to emphasize rehabilitation, and half want to focus on harsher punishment, then clearly it's the end, not the means, that should be argued.
5. Know where everyone is coming from. At some point in an argument, it is useful to ask, "What exactly would you like to see happen?" Despite the contentious arguments over most issues of the day, people usually have remarkably similar goals, even if they disagree on how to get there. People on all sides of the abortion debate probably agree, for example, that reducing unwanted pregnancies should be a goal. People on all sides of the big government-small government debate would probably agree that a healthy economy is a worthy objective. Knowing everyone wants to achieve the same end can help focus the debate on means. On the other hand, knowing people have different ends in mind helps you know that debating the means is futile. If half the people in a criminal-justice debate want to emphasize rehabilitation, and half want to focus on harsher punishment, then clearly it's the end, not the means, that should be argued.
6. Always be thinking ahead to the next level. There are always one or two questions that are more interesting than the questions being argued at the level of debate you're in. If you're arguing abortion policy, for example, and what the implications are for society, think ahead to the next level: What are the implications for humanity? When does human life begin? If you're debating the merits of a line-item veto, and whether that would give the president too much power or change the role of Congress too much, kick into the next level: What should the role of the federal government be? How should we relate to it, and it to us? By so thinking ahead, you can help sharpen the debate, move the argument along, get to the point where more coherent choices are available. If can also get you ready to:
7. Be aware of competing values.
At the core of every argument, beneath the facts, principles, beliefs and prejudices we muster to win a point, are values in conflict. In the assisted-suicide debate, the values of "the sanctity of life" and "the freedom to choose" clash. In arguments over prayer in public school, we are pitting "the right to freely exercise religion" against "the right not to have religion imposed on us." Our very system of government is based on the contradictory, but equally worthwhile, values of freedom and liberty; if we have too much of one, the other isn't possible -- only "justice" can balance the two. When values clash, which should take precedence in a given case and why? Get to those questions, and you're debating at the highest level possible.
