In part 1 of this series on arguing effectively, I explain that we have to define terms carefully before embarking on an argument. For instance, I would want to qualify the proposition Paris makes a better vacation than Venice by at the least stating the precise location (the city in France, not in Texas or New York, versus the city in Italy, not in California or Florida), the vacationers (college students? young families? middle-aged singles, senior couples?), and the purpose of vacation (architecture? art? dining? history? music? sports? theater? walking?).
Rules of conduct also apply to argument. Should we establish the points we want to argue (e.g., buildings, waterways, walks)? Should we insist on refuting each point the opponent raises? Then how do we refute? If I raise a point about the beauty of the great squares of Paris, such as the Place de la Concorde or the Place Charles de Gaulle, should you be required to refute my point by devaluing those locations? by explaining why Piazza San Marco and Campo San Polo are superior? by jumping off point to claim the Ponte di Rialto and Ponte dell' Accademia are more beautiful bridges than the Parisian squares? Should we determine time allotments for each point we want to argue, as well as the total time for the entire argument? Should we assign a judge to keep us on track? If the argument should lead to a winner, how would we determine victory? What about an audience to determine the winner?
In my years of sitting in corporate conference rooms, university lecture halls, and Thanksgiving dinners, I have noticed that many of these arguments turn into exchanges of indignation, invective, or insult because people don't establish rules. We might be arguing about entirely different things when we don't define terms, but we are certainly arguing pointlessly when we don't set the terms of engagement.
Rules of conduct also apply to argument. Should we establish the points we want to argue (e.g., buildings, waterways, walks)? Should we insist on refuting each point the opponent raises? Then how do we refute? If I raise a point about the beauty of the great squares of Paris, such as the Place de la Concorde or the Place Charles de Gaulle, should you be required to refute my point by devaluing those locations? by explaining why Piazza San Marco and Campo San Polo are superior? by jumping off point to claim the Ponte di Rialto and Ponte dell' Accademia are more beautiful bridges than the Parisian squares? Should we determine time allotments for each point we want to argue, as well as the total time for the entire argument? Should we assign a judge to keep us on track? If the argument should lead to a winner, how would we determine victory? What about an audience to determine the winner?
In my years of sitting in corporate conference rooms, university lecture halls, and Thanksgiving dinners, I have noticed that many of these arguments turn into exchanges of indignation, invective, or insult because people don't establish rules. We might be arguing about entirely different things when we don't define terms, but we are certainly arguing pointlessly when we don't set the terms of engagement.
