I thought he did a great job of keeping people calm and explaining his perspective.
It’s hard — sometimes impossible — to argue with unreasonable people. What have you found effective when arguing with angry people of opposing viewpoints?
(via)
A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
I thought he did a great job of keeping people calm and explaining his perspective.
It’s hard — sometimes impossible — to argue with unreasonable people. What have you found effective when arguing with angry people of opposing viewpoints?
(via)
The health care debate is bringing out the worst in some people, and it seems to me most of those people are on the conservative side. I’m sympathetic to those skeptical of universal health care — I’m a libertarian, after all. But I also know our system is broken and that there should be some kind of government health care for those who cannot afford it.
It’s good to have healthy debate. But some people are not wiling to be open about this issue — it is much like fundamentalists who refuse to question their own faith. When you discuss health care with these people, they stop thinking critically and use labels like “socialism” and “death panels” to stop the argument.
In my experience it’s rare to have rational conversations with people like that — they refuse to even consider what you have to say. Which brings me to this girl who accuses Barney Frank of following “nazism” (aka Obama’s health plan):
How can you get through to someone like that? They’re completely brainwashed. It’s virtually impossible to get them to consider your viewpoint. So we revert to ridicule, which doesn’t convince them they are wrong either.
Is there a better way? Or is that all that’s left for these people?
You might have heard about the new Collision movie. It’s a documentary from Christian punk-rocker/filmmaker Darren Doane who follows Christopher Hitchens & Doug Wilson while they go on a debate tour. It looks like an interesting film and is getting some attention in the reformed Christian circles.
I’ve seen a couple trailers in the past but honestly, it looked really amateur and I didn’t give it much thought. But I recently noticed that Darren has posted the first 13 minutes of the film, and I was pleasantly surprised at what I saw:
What do you think about it? Is it something you plan on seeing?
Everyone wants to argue effectively, and Dave Barry wants to help. “I argue very well,” Barry says, “Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don’t even invite me.”
There are five golden rules to being a great debater:
1. Drink liquor.
….But if you drink several large martinis, you’ll discover you have STRONG VIEWS about the Peruvian economy. You’ll be a WEALTH of information. You’ll argue forcefully, offering searing insights and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room.
2. Make things up.
DON’T say: “I think Peruvians are underpaid.” Say instead: “The average Peruvian’s salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level.”
3. Use meaningless but weighty-sounding words and phrases.You should memorize some Latin abbreviations such as “Q.E.D.”, “e.g.”, and “i.e.” These are all short for “I speak Latin, and you don’t.”….Suppose you want to say, “Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don’t have enough money.”
You never win arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say, “Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians qua Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se, as it were. Ergo, ipso facto, case closed. Q.E.D.”
4. Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks.
You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevant phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are: You’re begging the question; You’re being defensive; Don’t compare apples to oranges; What are your parameters?
5. Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.
This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say, “That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say,” or “You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler.”
It seems our creationist friends’ secret playbook is the advice of Dave Barry! Well, except for the first one, which is a shame, because it would make them even more amusing.

Copyright 2008-2012, Patheos. All rights reserved. Terms of Service | Patheos Privacy Policy

Follow Patheos
Atheist: