At the toy store I work at, political debates are quotidian distractions. Half of us are liberals; the other half are conservatives. We all get along perfectly well, but we like to discuss our differences. In a more recent instance, I recall talking to my coworker, going on tangents, and eventually coming to the subject of environmentalism - specifically, global warming. I'm usually very passive about my opinions and open to other perspectives, but global warming is an issue that I refuse to stand down on.
When my coworker began citing his own personal hypotheses about the "true" nature of global warming, I got annoyed. He didn't have sources for his opinion - merely latent concepts he adopted from what he heard at the dinner table with his highly conservative family. He didn't rely upon logos, pathos, or ethos - he was simply borrowing ideas and asserting them as facts.
In my own demure fashion, I made a series of rebuttals to his arguments. The difference between our styles of reasoning was distinct - I had sources. When I do decide to voice my opinion, I make sure that I have a sizable arsenal of facts and objective references. I wasn't citing some amateur correspondant from leftist media sources, I offered university-backed research, expert analyses, and, at one point, I even broke out my laptop to present a visual aid when the discussion turned to the human vs. nature debate on increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I used logical reasoning exclusively.
In the end... he still fundamentally disagreed with me, but didn't want to discuss it anymore. In our debate-happy toy story, that typically means I won that day.
Reading what you wrote, seems familiar. I often get into debates with a similar style than yours. Unfortunately I have not figured out how to get past the barrier where the other person says stuff that has no backing, but they believe it. I am also interested in how you view winning. Although, you didn't change his view, I assume, you made a scratch and presented a better argument, therefor you won? I suppose that is how traditional debates go, whoever disproves the other or stands their ground the longest wins.
ReplyDeleteI agree that you have to have sources. When people argue their case just on "hear-say" it is not credible enough. It all boils down to facts and research. Just like my friend, she had no facts or statistics to give me when I would talk about politics. She got very defensive, borderline aggressive, and didn't want to hear anything I said. Everything she fired back at me had nothing to do with any resourceful information. The only information she could give me was that he was "a good president" and in fact could not pinpoint what he has actually done.
ReplyDeleteThat was a fascinating read, thanks for sharing. Your post reminded me when an acquaintance of mine told me global warming wasn't real. I responded, "Oh, what makes you believe that?" They just replied, "It's just the democrats trying to scare people and control everything!" People form their own conclusions no matter what evidence is presented against their core beliefs. Persuading people's deep beliefs can be very challenging and can seem almost impossible at times. Your co-worker should have had facts to back up his position. It's sad to see people living off of what others present as truth and not finding credible information on subjects that they deem important. It's done far too much in society. Anyway, great post.
ReplyDeleteHow interesting! It is fun to hear people defend issues with the use of arguments that lack any facts or real sources. I can see how you noticed the wide difference between your argument about global warming versus your coworkers. With the use of proper facts, statistics, and other resources such as you using your laptop for visual aid a point can be proven more truthful then simple comments or remarks that are picked up through conversation. I related a lot on your post probably because I have been in an argument over this topic and also like most of us have gotten into a debate where the other side had nothing to provide but mere opinion. Great post!
ReplyDeleteThis situation is a good illustration of how important it is to present LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE when arguing a point. If you can’t give legitimate evidence which can be proven, then your argument lacks substance and your claims can’t be substantiated. It also makes you look ignorant on your subject and deeply impacts your credibility. It’s also funny how you were saying how annoying it was that this guy was basically spewing a bunch of opinions without presenting any real evidence. This is so true! Not only do these types of arguments fall on deaf ears, but they really are pretty irritating. I would actually think that your coworker’s particular type of reasoning “or lack thereof” could likely end up causing certain audiences to become hostile.
ReplyDeleteI really like the way you went about you debate. I do not think the way the guy you were debating with was okay. Considering that this is a logical society and we want to see what someone is asking us to believe with our own eyes it is very important to have facts to back up your position. If we go into a debate without any statistics or hard copy evidence of our side then no one will believe us. It is one thing for us to have our own personal faith but it is not fair for us to ask someone else to have faith based off of our own word.
ReplyDelete