A guide in debating those of opposing views: by Rick McLaughlin

 

 

 

A guide in debating those of opposing views: by Rick McLaughlin

I’m a political science graduate. I’ve done a lot of debating with those whose views are diametrically opposed to mine and for the most part it’s a waste of time. The main reason is our views are created by life experiences that causes us to have completely different views on life. Since you can’t change these life experiences the chance of changing the persons views are very slim. This is not to say that debating other viewpoints is a complete waste of time, just most of the time it is, and that is mainly because we try to change the viewpoint of someone who has already made up their mind. There are four main ways to debate your opponent, three I recommend, and one that does not work at all.

Option 1: The losing strategy.

Let’s start with the one I have since given up on. Convincing someone who’s views are different from yours because their life experiences. I was assigned to a group of three people to come up with a way to restore faith in Law Enforcement among Americans. It was someone majoring in criminal justice, and someone from a small town policed by a sheriff she knew and me all in the same group. I’ve had bad experiences with cops, I’ve had personal belongings stolen from me by them and been arrested no reason other than being out late at night, this is my reality. As you can imagine the conversation broke down, my answer to the problem was that we needed to get rid of police unions and make the same laws that apply to civilians apply to law enforcement. The soon to be cop’s idea was that the media needed to stop showing police in bad light then America would trust them again, he has this view because those instructing him in his classes for the most part are either cops or prosecutors , making their views into his reality. The girl from the small town seemed to take his side because all she had ever known were cops that she ever encountered were ones that she knew personally and liked her, this is her reality. It was such a waste, we literally got ZERO work done. This assignment was doomed from the start because my reality had literally zero in common with theirs. I can’t change their reality and they can’t change mine.

Option 2: the show must go on.

When I debate people now it’s for one of three reasons, the first and main reason is for the audience. I make a show out of it for those watching. I want those watching to see that my viewpoint is the right one, or at least make my viewpoint seem better than my opponent. I did this during a mock election debate, neither of us were going to change each other’s minds but there was a mandatory audience of about 30 people and I knew if I did well I could change a couple minds, I think I did and I’m still proud of it. This is what you see in presidential debates. Obama and Romney were not trying to change each other’s minds during the 2012 debates, they were trying to change ours. This is the principle of Option 2.

Option 3: dealing with a psychological terrorist.

The second reason is when you’re on the defensive, when someone attacks you for your opinions or on the rare occasion that the person’s views or behavior is so objectionable that I feel I that someone needs to take them a notch. I never start these conflicts, never, I you shouldn’t either. Those that do are scum who want to bully people as a means of war. Yes I said a means of war, they want you to feel bullied, helpless and demoralized and hurt so that when it’s time to decide the future your shell-shocked to act. Their psychological terrorist’s and though you should never start off thinking of someone as your enemy when they prove to be one you must see them for as enemies who want to ruin you unless you can ruin them first or you will lose and they will win, not at the argument but at life. You should deal with them without mercy and turn their emotional battery against them.

When you are subject to an attack where someone goes after you saying negative things about you personally for a statement you made you can do many things such as yelling at them, hitting them, threatening them, all of which actually hurt you more than them. When I face someone like this I take their opinion apart piece by making their argument look stupid, weak, and innefective. I don’t get drawn into their insults or accusations. I remember this crooked former jail guard who was bragging in class about beating people. I could have gone on a self-righteous rant about rights and how he’s a “mean” or “bad” person, instead I just laughed at him pointing out his lack of for beating up a drunk with a with a bunch of armed guards to back him up. The class nicknamed him “rent a cop”.             

Another time I dealt with this guy, he claimed he was in the military (looking tack I think he wasn’t) and mad that his professor made him read “Slaughterhouse Five” which is a book about the firebombing of Dresden during the Second World War. He ranted and raved about wanting to wage total war against America’s enemies killing men women and children literally screaming at them that they needed to die “for breathing”. I wanted to go on a rant telling him what bad person he was but he probably would have laughed. Instead I made him look like someone who should be pitied. Pointed out he wasn’t much different Nazis or Imperial Japan. By the end of the conversation I saw him with his fist balled up, he wanted to hit me, to lose his chance at a college education, to lose his personal liberty, I was that important to him. I won.

Those on the fence: the most worthwhile debates.

A friend of mine I’m not going to name because he is looking for a job right now and I don’t want to jeopardize it by mentioning his association with someone like me. He’s very conservative, he fought in Iraq, believed in the mission and is looking to be a police officer. I on the other hand have an isolationist view on foreign policy on have issues with police. But we DID have some common ground. We did believe albeit for different reasons that the government no longer represented the people and that the system was doomed to fail as well as a common philosophy about life in general. Because of those commonalities we were able to influence each other’s views when we sparred over things like who the media was biased towards, foreign policy, police policy. Our debates resulted in both of us gaining a more nuanced view of the world we live in. These are some of the best debates you can have because they not only influence the world around you but also make you a better person. Not only that but people who are on the fence see both sides and can give you information on people who are enemies so next time you have a debate with someone who is diametrically opposed to you you’ll know your enemy.