Art of Manliness - Latest Comments in How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

Re: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

CgntvDssdnt — Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:24:00 -0000

Excellent article.

Re: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

CgntvDssdnt — Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:24:43 -0000

Excellent article.

Re: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

Emily — Mon, 11 Nov 2013 17:32:50 -0000

Just reading these comments and how pleasant they were especially on a topic that usually ends up in lots of name calling is very impressive!
You are all fine gentlemen indeed :)
Keep it up! Women love it!

Re: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

John — Thu, 16 May 2013 06:19:24 -0000

In arguing politics, I prefer to use quotes from the founding fathers, particularly Jefferson and Madison, contemporaneous works, such as The Federalist Papers and Letters From The Federalist Farmer To The Republican, and the works of those who influenced them, particularly Algernon Sidney and John Locke.

If I get an argument about times changing or these being old, dead, white guys, I point to Powell v. McCormack (1967), in which the SCOTUS stated that the Constitution and amendments are to be interpreted so as to give them the meaning intended by the framers.

Few people are then able to argue against my points, and begin with insults and name-calling, to which I reply, "It has been said that those who can argue using facts and logic, do so. Those who cannot argue using facts and logic insult their opponents." Very few respond after that.

I may have an unfair advantage, though. Aside from following politics since before my age reached double digits, and aside from seemingly being one of very few who are truly familiar with the writings of the founding fathers, Sidney and Locke, as an attorney, I am, according to my wife a professional arguer. Name-calling, innuendo, and the like will get a person nowhere in a courtroom.

Re: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

James Petzke — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 22:08:37 -0000

I get into political debates all the time, especially with my family. I've learned through experience that the more understanding of the other side of the argument you are, the more likely they are to listen to you.

Re: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

Jake — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:14:36 -0000

I think it was a mistake to suggest that we seek out biased news sources, from the other side of the fence. We should be seeking UN-biased information, in the hopes that perhaps the current state of political punditry withers away and dies. There ARE great (mostly) unbiased media out there, although they are probably not as popular since they dont stroke anyone's egos. This article should have suggested places like Washington Monthly, hubski.com, Democracy Now, factcheck.org, where men can actually get informed.

Re: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

Dustin Wyatt — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 20:43:33 -0000

I think that there are two fundamental mistakes being made in modern political discourse. First, very few people bother with original sources. A lot of people can recycle Jefferson quotes all day long, putting forth such dialog as valid intellectual thought, but very few of them ever transcend Jefferson and read Locke. Our political heritage wasn't formed in a bubble. Our forefathers read and understood a diverse base of philosophy which helped shape their ideas.

Secondly, and more importantly, a lot of people get locked into a particular position and never revisit why they held that position to begin with. All too often people are inflexible in their thinking, and tend to miss or discount new information which may show flaws in their understanding. One will never make the world a better place, nor will they improve the lot of their posterity, if they are irreconcilably stagnant in their thoughts and awareness.

Re: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

Jarrod — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 19:46:43 -0000

Just reading the comments here shows that people still can engage in civil discourse (even online of all places!)

I just wish that politicians of the day could debate with some sense of civility.

Re: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

Anthony — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 22:57:37 -0000

I really appreciate the article, and actually generally try to engage in political discourse in much the way prescribed here, although unfortunatley I can be a little too argumentative.

I find, unfortunately, that people on the left and the right look at everything differently, not just politics. Any good discussion begins with the identification of common principles, but sometimes those principles make it nearly impossible to get anywhere. For example, I am a traditionalist conservative with a premodern metaphysical outlook (i.e., traditional Catholic). Human Nature, virtue, and sometimes even my faith come into play. For a modern or postmodern, especially a relativist, there is no discussion. We literally agree on nothing. Most liberals will not even engage in a conversation which includes both religion and politics.

At first I thought I had something profound to say, but it turns out I'm just whining, so I'll stop there.

Re: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

Jay Knox — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:24:37 -0000

Good article. Talking and Debating politics is very manly. (not that woman can't do it either :) )

Re: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

k2000k — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:21:50 -0000

Excellent article, it can be very frustrating living in a city were the majority of individuals don't have the same beliefs as you do and then have the more radical individuals accuse you of being a goose stepper. On the flip side living in an area where not everyone thinks like me has given me an appreciation for why they hold their beliefs, even if I don't agree with them. Every man should spend time in waters foreign to his own.

Re: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

senatorrosewater — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:01:56 -0000

Gabe is king of the comments in this thread. He nailed it.

I talk politics a lot, and have never had much trouble 'disagreeing without being disagreeable.'

The trouble I run into though is this... its not an Olberman vs. O'Reilley debate. I sometimes find myself 15 minutes into a conversation, and the fellow I'm debating won't accept NPR, Meet the Press, the Washington Post, or the NY Times as legitimate sources. It won't do to give a lecture on the basic tenets of journalism, point out that 'the facts have a liberal bias' and tear down Fox news (yet again).

I guess what I'm saying is that if you want to debate like a gentleman, make sure you're debating a gentleman, else just walk away.

Re: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

fred thompson — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 01:08:06 -0000

Absolutely fantastic article. I completely agree.

Re: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

Chris — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:14:50 -0000

I think some of the best advice is finding common ground, though you give it the least attention here. I think it's incredibly important to let the other side know that you share their same concerns--it's just that you disagree with the way they are proposing to fix it.

Re: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

Marv — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:04:02 -0000

Could McCain and Obama debate as gentlemen on the issue of the arts in America? Check this out: http://www.artsology.com/ob...

Re: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

Ed — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:02:45 -0000

Vynara on September 22nd, 2008 8:22 pm

I think that in a formal debate, such as a political debate, your methodology is absolutely perfect. It would allow you to actually understand how the person came to his/her belief and also if they really did believe it deeply it would come through. Also it would give you time to question your own position, especially if you respect the other party. This keeps you everyone from having to come up with some sort of long winded song and dance that the audience knows is a not correct. There is never anyone who knows everything about everything and your knowledge base is created by your life experiences.

Re: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

Alan — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:02:36 -0000

Maybe I am slowly becoming a cynical and angry person, but it seems that as time passes, attack ads against politicians have become more prominent than positive ads about themselves, and that the ads have reduced themselves into demonized, twisted, pus-spewing shells of truth. McCain attacked Obama for "Wanting to teach kindergartners about sex", when he wanted to help them avoid potential predators. Obama made fun of McCain for not being able to use computers, even though he had a war injury that does not allow for enough finger dexterity to use a keyboard. It seems petty, like two children fighting, and whenever the proverbial shit hits the fan, they both point to each other for the problems that arise from it. I would love for one to have an ad of them just sitting in a chair, and talking about what they believe in, without throwing a single "My opponent|the liberals/conservatives|the right/left|etc." anywhere. I would quite literally jump out of my seat and applaud for one of them finally doing something relevant.

I am withholding my political views from this post, because I don't want it clouding my own judgment. All I will say is this: I think there are too many attack ads, and they just degrade the ones who release them.

Re: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

Thomas Johnson — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:30:40 -0000

Good article, a lot of this applies to any conversation on a sensitive topic e.g. relationships, philosophy.

I don't think "why" and "how" questions are necessarily more provocative than "what" questions. "What" can form some pretty hurtful statements as well e.g. "what on earth makes you think that!".

Re: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

Gabe — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:36:00 -0000

@ Brett and Kevin,

Interesting discussion, all. I think the emphasis one places on the importance of feelings versus rational arguments is largely a product of one's personality (Meyers-Briggs' T vs F types), so different people will respond to different kinds of appeals.

But more importantly, I think that the approach you take in a conversation should be dictated by what you hope to achieve.

In my earlier comment, I was thinking along the lines of a semi-formal debate, where you're trying to convince someone of something, or change someone's mind (if not your opponent's, then an audience's). In these cases, your personal feelings don't count as arguments.

But if you're having a social conversation with friends or acquaintances, you're probably just trying to state your personal case in a respectable way. You're trying to help someone understand you. In cases like these, it seems to me that a string of statistics or facts might not be very compelling. They don't help your audience understand you. Brett provides some clear examples of how our personal experiences can shape our views, and in discussions where understanding is the goal--not scoring points or changing minds--I think discussion of personal anecdotes can be relevant.

Could it be that in personal discussions, first-hand experience probably holds more sway than a bunch of numbers that may not be immediately verifyable? While in public or professional debates, you need to abstract your arguments beyond yourself, since you're acting as a spokesman for a position?

Thanks for the discussion, folks. Again, excellent site here.

Re: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

Meiji_man — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:34:51 -0000

Very well put.

Too bad those Morons on the other side can't read, they could benefit from this!
(joke, I joke...)

Re: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

Peter — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:16:15 -0000

Great article! It is a shame today that there is no respect given in the world of politics, much less anything else. It seems to me that our current election is more of a Hollywood popularity contest than it is about ideals and beliefs. I am not saying votes are not important, I just see this as a reflection of most Americans inability to think for themselves and their lack of principle. It is a sad day. Very good points and thank you!

Re: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

Charlie — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:51:33 -0000

Really thought-provoking piece, guys. I myself need to take some of this advice to heart.

Man, I look around and American politics has gotten so nasty over the years. People are really fed up and a lot angrier than they used to be, or maybe it's just me. The art of a friendly political debate is lost, it seems. I'm going to take this advice to heart. Certainly, the older you get, the easier it is to see the other side. As the old French saying goes, "If a man is not a socialist before the age of 30, he has no heart. If he is still a socialist after the age of 30, he has no brain."

Re: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

Chris Cree — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 07:38:13 -0000

I get along much better with folks of diverging opinions after a friend of mine told me one day, "Chris, you've got to decide: do you want to be right, or do you want to have friends?"

It never occurred to me that those mostly are mutually exclusive goals.

So now, instead of working to "prove" to others that I am "right" I simply share my view and allow them to think that I'm "wrong."

Sure I still have as much conviction of my own beliefs. But once I let go of my need to be seen as right I quickly found myself getting along a whole lot better with other folks.

Re: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

Vynara — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:22:27 -0000

Ah, a timely and thought-provoking article; thank you, AOM.

to fellow AOM reader John:
Nothing wrong being unprepared, really. What I do is to seek facts from the person I'm discussing with. Stuff like, "I can't say I know this topic very well. Why don't you tell me why you agree with position X and not position Y?" Even without the so-called unbiased facts at your fingertips, it is perfectly possible to engage in a frutiful debate via Socratic questioning alone; that is, exploring the internal rationality of your fellow debator's belif system. So the discussion becomes more of a "You claim that you disagree with position Y because of X, Y, Z, but Y is unrelated to the issue at hand here". Be warned, though; Greek philosophy Socrates eventually got so many people mad at him that he was sentence to drink hemlock! ;)

@Rational vs Emotional Debate:
I very much agree with Brett on this. It seems too "traditionally masculine" an approach to demand pure rationality and cut out of the discussion anything that touches on the emotion. It doesn't have to be that way; emotions are part of that which makes us who we are, after all. Emotions, I feel, have gotten a bad reptuation from seeing politicians rant and rave at each other - the kind of shout-matches that have so unfortunately taken over so many debates. You can be calm and still speak passionately about what you believe in. Understanding how yourself and your opponent came to 'feel' about certain policies would, in my opinion, open new ways to look at any old issue.

My two cents' contribution to the article:

i) Sometimes, at the end, two intelligent and passionate individuals can simply agree to disagree. There's nothing wrong or odd about two great friends holding differing views on a certain topic. If anything, those two people are even better friends for being able to respect each other's principles and beliefs.

ii) Take responsibility for your own beliefs. I avoid saying stuff like, "You're wrong to think that way", "Can't you see why this is irrelevant?". Instead, I try to use "I think", "it is my opinion that", "from where I am standing", "from what I understand". That is, instead of making it sound like I'm accusing my opponent of something, I try to phrase my words in such a way that it's clear *I* am the one presenting *my* side of things. I feel this makes the discussion much less confrontation and therefore much more fruitful.

Lastly, to Nick: Haha! Thanks for sharing that. The stiff British upper lip never fails to amaze.

Re: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness

Brett — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:34:10 -0000

@Kevin-
As I commented to Gabe, I definitely would temper the importance of feelings in debate. But I also disagree that "feelings" have no place in political discourse or that asking someone "why they feel that way" is patronizing. A man may be pro-choice because his sister was raped and did not want to have the rapist's baby. A man may be anti-war because he served in Vietnam and became totally disillusioned with armed conflict and nation building. A man may be against free trade because his father had his factory job outsourced to India. A man might be against gun control because he's an avid hunter or because someone broke into his house and he had to brandish his gun to scare off the intruder. All of these things are reasons are subjective in nature but show why a man would "feel" a certain way about a policy. Without understanding these "feelings" you would never really understand why you friend felt a certain way.

Certainly rational facts should be the basis of an argument, but the reality is that we often seek out these facts to confirm and support a pre-conceived position based on our feelings from life experiences. Therefore, if you and a friend have reached an impasse of understanding in your debate, and are having trouble respecting each other's side, citing another study or historical factoid isn't going to help. You need to delve deeper and ask why your friend came to that position in the first place.