I've been having a problem for a while now where whenever I get into a political argument with someone, I basically just immediately start crying. Doesn't matter what it's about or even if I'm not very emotionally invested in my own position. Sometimes I'll just be arguing devil's advocate for the hell of it. Even if I know my conversation partner isn't antagonizing me, and even though I'm telling myself the whole time, "It's okay, no one thinks less of you for having a different opinion, this is just a discussion," it's like the floodworks just happen and I can't do anything about it. If I step away from the discussion, I calm down pretty quickly, but I WANT to be able to discuss my viewpoints with other people without turning into a faucet, because that's not fun for me or for the people I'm talking to. I used to pride myself on staying level-headed during discussions. I can't say that anymore. I really hate this new version of myself. It's almost certainly related to my depression, but I've been taking meds for that which have not alleviated this symptom. Has anyone experienced this, and can you help me out?
It seems the more confident I feel about the strength of my argument, the less I feel like breaking down during a discussion. Makes sense. Conversely, I think, maybe the reason I get so worked up normally is because I feel frustrated about having an opinion but not having enough evidence to back it up? Also, I feel like I "lose" arguments often. If I enter into discourse without feeling prepared, it feels like I'm just heading towards another inevitable defeat, at which point I'll feel angry with myself for backing the losing side or for failing to prove the validity of my points for the umpteenth time. Actually, come to think of it, maybe this is all just me being unreasonably bitter about losing.
A couple of quick tips. * Always be willing to step out for a short time. Take a break. Collect your thoughts. * Pick and choose when you want to argue. You rarely have a duty to argue, so pick and choose. * Consider your audience. Most often, it is not the person you are arguing with. It's usually someone else who is watching or listening. Treat your opponent as your opponent, not your audience. * Listen, listen, listen! Many arguments devolve into quarrels because the people aren't listening to each other. Pay careful attention to what your opponent is saying and argue against what is actually said, not what your opponent "means".
Hahaha, oh wow, that is an identifiable feeling. And I get exactly what you mean with having less risk of breaking down at times when you're more confident with your material. I definitely prefer to argue in a text-based format, because I'm less on the spot and feel much less DIRECT pressure, and arguing stresses me the heck out at the best of times. So this is better for online discussions than face-to-face, but some of the same ideas in face-to-face situations too, it's just a little harder to implement. But I find that it helps me detach from the emotions of the moment if I take a step back and try to analyze how the other person is making their case. It doesn't have to even be a case of 'whoa, whoa, you are responding to [thing] I never said,' it can be a totally reasonable set of statements. But if I can try to untangle the logic of why they're presenting their points this way, it's like a puzzle that I'm trying to solve, and that's a less emotional situation than if I try responding to their words as nothing but words. If that makes sense :P On a similar distract-my-emotional-bits note, sometimes it helps me to play a game of arguing strategically. How can I avoid a logical fallacy, how can I avoid a position where I'm arguing about extremes that don't have much bearing on the real world, how can I make I put the maximum weight behind my statements without turning it into a slapfest, how can I disagree with them most gracefully, etc. Varying by subject and context, of course. It's not really arguing dishonestly, it's mostly arguing your points with an eye to presenting yourself in the best possible light, as a totally reasonable and intelligent human. Which is something that's super important to some people and zero percent important to others, but like that other idea, it gives my brain something to keep itself busy and at least partially on topic, without giving me much space to get frustrated and emotional. Or, in related to what Rigs said about the quarrels, I find it really helps me a lot if I make a point of acknowledging the things the other person has said, in a way that shows to them (and/or observers) that I am making a real effort to listen to their words. My go-to formula is something like 'I think you're saying that [paraphrasing of their point]? I can see where you're coming from, but [counterargument]'. I find it tends to help keep people I'm arguing with chill (which helps me stay chill too), it keeps me honest in terms of responding to the things they're actually saying, and it gives me a sanity check that I'm not missing some key point in their words. But it also takes the pressure off to immediately have my counterpoint at the ready, and brings me a little bit of conversational breathing space where I have a slightly larger window to breathe, process their argument, and figure out how to respond to it. It's a fairly little thing to add in, and usually isn't too necessary unless an argument has gotten complicated or the other person is making a point that's tricky to follow, but it's definitely helped me a lot with keeping my cool.
@rigorist thanks for the good advice. I was going to say that usually my arguments are one on one and they don't have an audience, but then I realized this wasn't exactly true-- I'm often hyper-aware during an argument of how other people within my social circles might perceive my and my opponent's positions (esp if I think they might react negatively if I change my position to my opponent's) and therefore I'm sort of anxiously imagining up an audience where there is none. It's true that I rarely have a duty to argue, but even when I choose not to, and simply listen to someone express an opinion I disagree with, I still get really anxious... maybe due to imagining the argument we might have if I spoke up. And seems really bad to say to someone, "hey I don't like your opinion and don't want to hear you talk about it; but I also don't want to talk about why I don't like it."
@spockandawe What do you do if you're NOT confident with your arguments? Do you usually just not have that convo at that time (again, easier to do online than face to face)? Cause it's much harder to focus on the strategy of your counterpoints if you... don't have sources on hand to back you up. I feel like I often devolve into "but but but but that doesn't sound right" as a counterpoint and obviously that doesn't portray me as an intelligent human. Is it better just not to say anything in those cases, or to try to express something resembling a point anyway?
I turn into a improvised water fountain when I get frustrated during debates as well. Other than solidifying my own arguments, I've found it useful to realize that the waterworks are usually at least as distracting for other people as they are for me. Sometimes I can say through my tears, "Sorry, I'm not actually very upset, this just happens sometimes when I get frustrated with my ability to express myself, give me a second to get a tissue and collect my thoughts," and then continue the debate in a logical fashion, while still crying. I can't always manage that, but when I can it shifts the default from "whoever gets visibly emotional first loses" to "whoever is least comfortable with visible displays of emotion loses". Neither one is fair, but I don't feel too bad about not always having to occupy the default losing side.
"Cards win rounds" (James Herndon, Debate coach @ Emory University) In competitive debate, "cards" are the evidence. The term goes back to when you had things written on 3x5 index cards. What Herndon is getting at is that you have to do research if you want to win. So do the research. The last knock-down drag-out internet fights I got into were way back in Obama's first term with birthers. I still have a folder full of old cases I pulled on what "natural born citizen" means. I can't believe I put so much effort into internet slapfights, but that's the sort of thing I find fun. My old same-sex marriage file is just as large. All out of date, of course, but it was fun doing the work. If you want to dominate, you have to do the research--there's no way around it. I know a lot of tricks and generally have a bad attitude that scares people off, but when push comes to shove, "cards win rounds". My recommendation to you, if you want to dominate, is do some research on a couple things you want to defend. news.google.com and scholar.google.com are your friends for this. Watch a couple other people make shitty arguments and research what is wrong with them.
I deflect if I can, or act like a slippery asshole who is very 'well i don't really have the background to discuss that aspect of the situation' and get back onto more comfortable ground. Not agreeing with them, but maneuvering in a situation where you have to lay out exactly what you do think and defend it. You can get around a lot of assertions, like... say someone says that UK's healthcare system is 100% super flawless and america should adopt it. It would be easy to get trapped into laying out what all the flaws are, defending why they count as flaws, laying out what you'd have to do to fix it, etc. But if I can say something along the lines of 'well I don't have the data on hand for the particulars, but I'm pretty sure they've had some significant problems with healthcare access in their system'. It's hard to attack that, because you've owned up to not having sources, you've said you're 'pretty sure', you aren't making a strong, well-defined stand that you have to defend. It's a position where you can't necessarily gain much ground with the other person, but it's hard to make you lose ground. Or, the petty converse (it's my favorite) of focusing on making quality arguments? Focusing on picking apart the flaws in the other person's. Wait, you said the UK healthcare system would work for America, but that's without accounting for the different physical layout and human geography of the two countries. Or putting it back into vague terms, because I have no ability to knowledgeably talk healthcare, 'wait, I hear what you're saying with [z], but it seems like you're responding as though I said [x], when I actually said [y].' Innocently laying out that there seems to be a conversational disconnect and do they know how that happened? is a good way to start diverting away from substance into the particulars of how to communicate. And if you feel totally out of your depth, you can fall back to a position of 'I don't have the specific evidence at hand to lay out a counterpoint, but I disagree with point [A]', it's basically impossible for them to budge you from that spot. It can be kind of infuriating to argue with someone holding that position, but if you hold it yourself, you can basically stonewall the whole debate.
Well, it's possible to dislodge folks from the ignorance position, but you have to be willing to be kind of an asshole like me. :D
Also, "that doesn't sound right" is the basis for so much of my own ability to engage usefully in arguments. Even if you can't put it into words right away, that feeling is your instincts telling you there's something there that deserves a look. If you're unable to pursue the debate right there and then, it's often worth it to make a careful note of it for later analysis. Analysis you can do on the spot, with some practice, if you have the energy: check to see if a statement is a bait-and-hook scenario. The hook is where the other person wants the conversation to go, or what they want people to take as assumed. It lets the other person direct the conversation in some way. The bait is the flashy bit that gets your attention and makes it hard to avoid engaging with the conversation on their terms. Particularly egregious example: Discussion of racism and police stopping drivers of color more often than people who appear white. Male friend makes deliberately dumb statement about women drivers and then waits for me to respond. This is not a very complex thing going on here. It's baiting me with a topic I feel strongly about, in order to drag the conversation onto a different subject. It's tempting to bite even though it's obviously hurty and unpleasant and will probably end up doing damage to me whether or not I win the argument. Me, taking the bait: Actually, statistically, women drivers.... Me, dismissing the bait: Don't change the subject, statistically, police and black drivers.... Me, grabbing the bait and pulling the other person out of the boat: I may or may not be willing to drop the subject of racism for now, but I want to know why you said that thing that's making me very uncomfortable. Was that the effect you intended? Less obvious health care-related example, because this is definitely a conversation I've had before and had difficulty with: Friend makes a remark to me, an American, about how they just don't understand how Americans can be so callous about the less fortunate that we don't take immediate steps to implement a UK healthcare plan, which is a shining beacon of doing everything right. Pull this into its pieces and look at it. This is several complete statements, not just one: Americans are callous about the less fortunate. Americans are not taking immediate steps to implement a UK healthcare plan. A UK healthcare plan is a shining beacon of doing everything right. These are all separate assertions. Shiniest topic (bait) I'm not adequately prepared or informed to discuss: UK healthcare is a shining beacon of doing everything right. I suspect this is not objectively true, both because of cynicism and because of hearing the complaints of friends who live in the UK. But my ability to hold my ground on this topic against a strong opponent is not great. I just do not have adequate information at this point in time. Secondary topic I also want to avoid: Americans are not taking immediate steps to implement a UK healthcare plan. I don't disagree with this. I consider it largely uninteresting and irrelevant to pursue as a topic though, unless my objective is to confuse and derail. The hook, which is a pointy hurty thing hidden within the bait, which I would like to avoid inadvertently swallowing: Americans are callous about the less fortunate. If I take the bait and argue about whether a UK healthcare plan is perfect, I am letting the hook and all of its implications slip by as unquestioned assumptions that will affect the direction of the ensuing conversation. I will probably feel upset, because those assumptions are personally insulting to me and I don't think they're fair. Me, implicitly agreeing to a debate I'll probably lose or feel unsatisfied with: I'm not sure the UK healthcare system is perfect. It's failed some of my friends. Me, derailing the argument: How immediate are we talking here? Because logistically... Me, negotiating the givens I'm willing to accept: You think the healthcare issue is really driven by a uniquely American callousness to the less fortunate? And if they respond with obviously, how could you come to any other conclusion, I can say I haven't yet reached a conclusion, but could they expand on their own conclusion further? Me, grabbing the bait and pulling the person out of the boat: Hang on, do you consider me one of these callous Americans? Because I never got the sense you thought so negatively of me before and I'm a little dismayed. If something feels wrong, pull it to pieces. Make a note of the part you feel most automatically inclined to argue about, and then look for the bit that hurts the most. Are these the same thing? That will give you a starting point for determining whether the hurty bit is a distraction or if you're being distracted from it. Your strongest bet within a friendship, given practice and a relatively calm state of mind, will usually be to react directly to the fact that you're feeling hurt and try to resolve that before continuing the argument. If you are totally, hopelessly out of your depth and need to deescalate, go robotic. (That's an interesting point. Hmm, that deserves further consideration. This is a complex topic. That may be true. Many people seem to hold that opinion. Surely this has been studied in some depth.) Try to avoid sentences with "I" or "you" if you're needing to quickly create more personal distance.
