|
It's not about facts. Facts are easy.
One key to effective debating is never to take it personally. I know quite well that is more easily said than done, but it is an important skill to learn. And, it is a skill. If a disagreement has reached a level that it ruins your week, suggesting you've become so involved in the matter that it remains a part of your conscious thought even when not actively engaged in the disagreement, you're most likely not being effective while you are actively engaged. You need to disengage gracefully before you reach this point, but if you find you've already reached it, immediately stop participating.
The question is how to do this, how not to take a matter that is most likely very important to you (why else are you debating a point?) personally. One method is to be conscious of difficult, transitional moments in an exchange, speak (or write) less during those moments, analyze what is taking place by paying close attention to your opponent and what they are saying, not think about yourself at all, and address, directly, what they are saying in a manner calculated to strike weak points in the argument being presented. With all that analysis, which must be done quickly, your brain has little time to worry about how you're feeling and to get so involved that you allow emotions to take control of you. If you can't win a point, don't argue it. That will simply result in you feeling a sense of failure and leave your opponent with the initiative. Concentrate on your strong points and take the initiative away.
Here's something to consider: Why did Senator Joe McCarthy effectively lose the "debate" in which he was asked, "Have you no sense of decency, sir at long last?" One part of the answer is that he took that personally, and it prevented him from offering an effective response. You might suggest that Mr. Welch had taken the matter that led to him asking this question personally and that this had motivated him to be more effective. I do not believe this to be the case. What is forgotten is the line immediately following this effective assault:
Senator McCarthy: I know this hurts you, Mr. Welch. But I may say, Mr. Chairman, on a point of personal privilege, and I would like to finish it—
Mr. Welch: Senator, I think it hurts you, too, sir.
Mr. Welch, while certainly feeling a sense of disgust at McCarthy's tactics, channeled his anger and forced McCarthy into taking the matter personally himself. He turned the tables, in other words, which is dramatically highlighted by the above line. It may hurt me a little, Mr. Senator, but it hurts you more to have been called to account. I know it. You know it, and in just a moment, everyone is going to know it.
Senator McCarthy then began a rambling tirade devoid of any sense, and everyone knew, everyone listening and watching and who read the transcript later; everyone knew he had lost it.
Then, McCarthy directed a question at Mr. Welch, who answered:
"Mr. McCarthy, I will not discuss this with you further. You have sat within 6 feet of me, and could have asked me about Fred Fisher. You have brought it out. If there is a God in heaven, it will do neither you nor your cause any good. I will not discuss it further. I will not ask Mr. Cohn any more questions. You, Mr. Chairman, may, if you will, call the next witness."
Mr. Welch took himself out of it before he took it too personally and began raving like Mr. McCarthy, and McCarthy had nowhere to go but down. Checkmate.
The moral of this story is that while avoiding taking a debate personally, look for ways in which to force your opponent to do so. This is an unusual example because McCarthy was blind-sided. If you see an opportunity to blind-side your opponent, take it, but be careful where it will lead and make sure you don't yourself open up your own flanks. Under normal circumstances, the issues you discuss will not be so highly charged, although the way you feel about those issues may make it seem so. Be patient. Separate your inner-self from the environment, and constantly analyze what is taking place. React to circumstances, but never let those circumstances control your message. Tailor the message for the circumstances. Believe it or not, mediation outside the context of a debate forum helps.
Otherwise, on the subject of books, I'll suggest something that may seem unusual. _How to Read a Person Like a Book_ by Gerard Nierenberg. This is often used as a manual for sales training and is mostly about body language and trying to predict people's behavior, which may seem completely unrelated to debate unless you consider something important. What is a salesperson trying to do? In the majority of situations in which sales people find themselves, they are trying to convince someone to do something they may not have been initially willing to do by arguing, in a specific manner, the benefits of doing that thing. Sounds a great deal like debating doesn't it?
In short, concentrate on your opponents, knowing them and what they are all about, and use that knowledge to frame those facts and figures you have at the ready to be most effective for the situation.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
