If you go in for an argument, take care of your temper. Your logic, if you have any, will take care of itself.

– Joseph Farrell

Part 2: Definitions

One of the most crucial things to any argument, the very framework on which it lies, is definitions. It is so easy to get lost in verbal combat, striving desperately to prove your point while undercutting your opponent’s, and the whole time being unaware that technically, you’re not even arguing about the same thing.

Easy example? I once had an argument with a friend about whether animals were self-aware. It got fairly heated, and there was quite a bit of back-and-forth, until we stumbled to a halt over a point of mine, which revealed that we actually had two very different definitions of “self-aware”. He thought of it as a metaphysical thing, about knowing your place in the universe, and I was being literal, and took it to mean knowing you were a separate entity from the other cat.

We laughed about it at the time, but we could have just as easily gotten enraged that the other person couldn’t even follow this much reasoning.

So, let’s start talking about arguing by defining it.

What is an argument? Well, the simple definition, without looking at a dictionary, would be two or more people with different information, trying to convince their opponents of the validity of their information, and that their opponent’s information is incorrect.

That seems a bit vague. My problem is that people tend to mistake arguing for other things. And maybe that’s the key, defining an argument not solely by what it is, but also by what it isn’t.

• An argument is not a debate

  Although they serve a similar purpose, namely, convincing someone else that their point of view is incorrect, the two get grouped together. But a debate is highly structured, with time limits, and specific rules on how and when to phrase your refuting of your opponent’s facts. A true argument doesn’t tell you how long to speak, or when. If you have a point halfway through your opponent’s statement, wait for a break, and then interject. Debating also involves outside scorekeepers, which diminishes an argument if it’s done as a spectator sport.

• An argument is not a fight

  Again, the two are very similar, and more people use the two terms interchangeably than any others. Here’s the difference, and it’s a simple one: emotion. A fight is what happens when two people are angry with each other. There can be personal attacks thrown in, trying to hurt the other person. Maybe that’s the most important point: hurting the opponent. An argument can be heated, of course, and quite passionate, but you should be able to walk away afterward without a harsh thought towards your opponent. They simply had misinformation, which doesn’t define them as people. That, however, does not mean an argument cannot turn into a fight. The line between argument and fight is a very thin one, and to the uninitiated, can be crossed quite easily. And usually, without the possibility for reversal.

If you are aware of what an argument should not be, it can help steer you away from it accidentally spilling over and turning in to either a debate (unlikely) or a fight (quite possible).

Remember: a person is not their beliefs. A person is their actions, and their experiences, and they should not be demeaned simply because a person gave them some poor information. Trust me, not everything in your head is accurate either. That’s one of the reasons we argue – as sort of a self diagnostic to figure out if someone else can correct our misinformation, or if it holds up under fire.

And remember that before any argument, you should always make sure you’re talking about the same thing. Unless of course, you’re not, which is a strategy we will explore at a later date.

Next time: Knowledge. Do you need it?

As a USENET discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

- Godwin’s Law

Arguments involve a lot of different strategies in order to prove a point.

You can use the obvious method of battling fact for fact – but you better be pretty damned sure you have more facts than the other guy, and that yours are better.

You can argue from a semantic point of view, and try to prove them wrong based on how they are saying what they’re saying.

You can attack the credibility of your speaker, which runs the risk of turning from an argument into a fight.

But the most common method of proving a point to someone who doesn’t get it is by comparison – specifically, through the usage of similes and metaphors.

For those who failed high school English, a metaphor is comparing someone to something, for example, “That dude is a machine!” We all understand that no one is claiming the gentleman in question is, in fact a robot come from the future. We understand the convention enough to get that someone is stating, through comparison, that the person is similar to a machine in whatever way is being stated by the context.

Likewise, a simile is the same thing, only using ’like’ or ‘as’ to make the comparison, ie. “That chick is as fast as lightning!” Again, we all understand that were we capable of racing this woman against a bolt of lightning, in reality, she would come up short. But we understand by this comparison that she’s pretty damned fast.

Now, this would seem a natural explanatory situation for an argument. You’re trying to make a point, it’s clearly not getting through to your opponent, so you use comparison to clarify. And at some point, you are going to want to make a comparison that brings up either the Nazis, or Hitler himself.

This is actually a very common occurrence. Common enough, that one gentleman created an internet phenomenon when he suggested that anyone who invoked either Hitler or the Nazis is said to “lose” an argument. Thus, Godwin’s Law was born.

But seriously – does this make any sense? I mean, why would people bring up Hitler and his posse? One would assume that there are legitimate comparisons to be made. And Hitler himself, or the Nazis as a group, are a clear and concise concept. They symbolize the worst evil that humans do, and everyone, except for diehard old school Germans, instantly get it.

I’m not advocating comparing people to Hitler, and trying to imply that their evil acts are on par with old Adolf. To say that Michael Jackson’s alleged child molestation makes him as evil as Hitler is a ridiculous comparison, and would be instantly dismissed by an Argue Fu-er with even half a brain. But there are other, more reasonable comparisons that can use the Nazi concept to good argumentative results.

• When someone uses the old “I was just following orders” excuse, mentioning that this was the same excuse the Nazis used simply shows that it’s a crappy excuse. It doesn’t imply that the person using it is evil.
• If anyone wants to imply that vegetarianism makes you a better person, or being an artist, you have a go to blast against it.
• I personally have enjoyed using Hitler when anyone gives the old chestnut: “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.” Realizing that this means that Hitler was also entitled tends to shut people up.
• People who argue that the pentagram is not a symbol of Satanism deserve to be told about how the Nazi’s ruined someone else’s perfectly legitimate symbol.

The fact remains that despite some touchstones of reference becoming almost a cliché due to over use, there is a perfectly good reason why it got used so much in the first place.

So I honestly don’t see what the problem is in using either the Nazis, or Adolf Hitler, as a negative argument to make your point. And anyone shouting “Godwin’s Law” after you do deserves a kick in the nuts. Because telling people how to behave and what they were allowed to say? That’s something Adolf Hitler would do!

This is the part that impresses me. Now, some of the people commenting have decided that this blog is pure satire (which I lean towards — this author is having far too much fun), and others think they are a delusional "crazy Christian". The interesting thing is that this author has defended his point, to his satisfaction, across well over 1,000 comments. And he did it for the simple fact that he didn't care what others put — he knew he was right. Whether he was or not is irrelevant to me. I'm more impressed that people didn't get the hint after 200 comments and bail.

This guy is arguing religion, and is completely comfortable using the Bible as his ultimate source of knowledge. What's clever is that, based on this, he has an infallible defensive position. And this was apparent to me very early on, but it seems not to any of the commenters.  It's not enough that they know they're right in their opinion — they have to make him admit he's wrong! And the fact that this is an impossible task does not dissuade them. The author has the top of the hill nicely staked out, and his attackers suffer for this. And they refuse to give up, which is admirable. But futile — so futile. Check it out for just a laugh, or maybe look a little deeper to understand human nature.