by Nash Yielding

Political and religious debates can often get bogged down in minutiae or go in circles. To combat this tendency, I have developed a logical template for each kind of debate, shown below.

IMPORTANT NOTE:

These templates do not take into account the psychological defenses underlying many political and religious opinions. They are merely the logical steps to use in a debate. If you are discussing these topics with friends and family and would like to preserve or improve your relationship with them, I recommend using a more empathetic approach.

In fact, it is possible that you may not explicitly use these templates in a debate at all. They may be most powerful in their role as an assurance to you that the other person’s argument lacks valid content. You can then spend the interaction expressing curiosity about and sympathy for whatever caused the person to need the intellectual defenses against which you are fighting, instead of trying to defend yourself against their intellectual arguments. Rather than getting bogged down in abstract intellectual “debate,” which will probably not go anywhere anyway, you can work to uncover the emotional trauma that is at the root of so many falsehoods.

In debating these topics, it can be helpful to let the other person define all the terms, standards, and definitions in the debate, preferably at the beginning. This reveals inconsistencies in their position as the debate goes on. Instead of pointing out that they have violated your standards for debate (which they may dispute, especially when cornered), show where they have violated their own standards.

RELIGION

Because people tend to associate religion with morality, they will respond best to arguments from truth.

The religious person will often use “objective” standards and “evidence” when on the offensive, only to fall back on subjectivism (“but it brings me comfort”) when challenged. The best way to counter this strategy is to make them choose a side up-front: objective or subjective.

(STEP 1): “Are you making a truth claim, or are you reporting a subjective, internal state?”

(1b): Said another way: “Are you saying that X is true, or are you saying that you believe X is true?”

If they reply that they only believe X to be true, then they are outside the realm of debate. To debate a person about their subjective opinions is to legitimize those opinions by treating them as objective, debatable facts. It’s nice of them to share their opinion with you, but there is nothing left to debate. [End of debate]

If they are making a truth-claim, then such claim is subject to evidence and logic, which they are obligated to provide. However, rather than imposing an objective standard, ask them to define the standards.

(STEP 2): “What is your standard for differentiating truth from falsehood?”

(2b): Said another way: “How do you know what is true?”

They must use either objective or subjective standards for truth.

If their standard is subjective, then they have contradicted their previous assertion that their statement was objective. This includes both arguments from relativism and arguments from authority. [End of debate]

If their standard is objective, it will rely on logic and evidence–external standards which are independently verifiable. Since they have defined the standards, it will be harder for the other person to avoid following them.

(Knock-Out 1): “The supernatural, by its own definition, is outside of existence; therefore the supernatural does not exist.”

(Knock-Out 2): “If the ’supernatural’ is unobservable and unverifiable, then no one can tell you about it (because they have no way of knowing about it themselves). If the ’supernatural’ is verifiable or knowable, then it can be subjected to the same verification process as anything else. But anything that has been independently verified no longer falls into the realm of the ’supernatural.’ It is called ’scientific,’ or just true.

GOVERNMENT

Because people tend to associate government with practicality, they will respond best to arguments from action.

The statist will present government solutions to problems as if they know what they are talking about. However, in almost all cases they have not deeply researched the problem or any of its proposed solutions, but are merely repeating emotionally appealing assertions they have heard from others. Most would rather believe they are working on the problem than actually work to solve the problem.

(STEP 1): “Do you actually want to solve X (a given problem), or do you prefer to merely believe that you are working on X?”

(1b): Said another way: “Would you prefer to feel good or to solve the problem?”

(1c): Or another way: “Which is more important: your feelings, or X?”

If they reply that they only wish to feel good about “working on” a solution, then debating with them about their own self gratification is pointless. [End of debate]

If they claim to want to solve the problem, then they should have researched the problem, its causes, and potential solutions (both attempted and proposed). Anyone can say that they are interested in solving a problem, but the evidence lies in how deeply they have researched it and how much work they have put into solving it.

(STEP 2): “Have you studied the problem, its causes, and its potential solutions (both attempted and proposed)?”

(2b): Said another way: “How much have you thought about this?”

If they have not studied the problem at all, then they cannot logically claim to be interested in solving it. In fact, proposing solutions from a position of ignorance is very reckless. [End of debate]

If they claim to have studied the problem, then they should be knowledgeable of it. Ask questions:

(STEP 3): “Please explain to me how you see the problem. What do you think is causing it? How do you think it can be solved? Can you think of any other solutions that might work? Are you aware if your proposed solution has already been tried? What were the consequences?”

If they cannot answer the above questions with some degree of clarity, then they have not researched or thought about the problem and were not forthright in their previous statement. [End of debate]

Those who have taken the time to educate themselves about the problem, its causes, and its potential solutions may be said to be interested in solving the problem. However, if they have indeed solved the problem, then they should be able to implement their solution peacefully (since violence is itself a problem that needs to be solved). If it is a good solution, then it is possible to implement without violence. If they are not aware that their proposed solution is violent, then they have not thought deeply enough about the problem.

(Knock-Out 1): “If people are all good, government is not needed. If people are all evil, government is not possible. If people can be good or evil, then government cannot be justified, because the evil people will always seek power over the others.”

(Knock-Out 2):“The problems which government is supposed to solve are problems of violence, or are often caused by violence. Government is, by its own definition, institutionalized violence. To propose the institutionalization of violence in order to reduce or prevent violence is a contradiction.”

___________________________________________________________________________

The beauty of these templates is their efficiency. Opinions which are not based in reality can be exposed in minutes. Time can then be spent debating real arguments and real solutions rather than popular opinion or different versions of conventional wisdom. Each person is bound, by their own stated goals, to observe potential flaws in their position, and to present objective arguments based on logic and evidence.

Nash Yielding is a student at North Carolina State University studying Science, Technology, and Society. Visit his blog.