I try my best to debate in such a way that the written content can be valuable for anyone that reads it. Here is the protocol I follow when I reply. The approach I take is based on what I've read about ancient Greece and how they facilitated public debates.
Explaining my approach will bring light to the terms I use when replying.
I'm taking the time to do this so as to get ahead of any miscommunication of tone.
I'm not trying to evoke an emotion, "ridicule", or get a rise out of anyone. I use these terms as markers to keep track of what's been said and use them to form better arguments in the future. They are just terms, please don't read into them with any emotion. I'm not trying to put you down or insult you. Here are the terms I generally use:
- I agree.
- I disagree.
- I don't understand. I'm confused.
- I abstain.
- You don't understand.
- You are uninformed.
- You are misinformed.
- You are illogical.
- You have a bias.
- You're playing preference ping pong.
- What of it?
When I receive a reply from someone, I take all the emotion out of the reply and translate it back to the terms above. I'm not saying that you have to follow this format. I'm only presenting this format so that our conversation has some structure and can conclude.
When you make a claim. I quote it for reference and make sure I understand it. In my head, I'll paraphrase what you said, and then try to think of concrete examples that exemplify the point you're trying to get across.
If I can't do the task above, I reply with "I don't understand," and why I don't understand/what I need clarification on.
If "I agree", then we are on the same page. This is ideally where I want to be with all claims. I'll try to make this investment with each comment, because this stuff matters to me, and I want to learn and grow.
If "I abstain", I have to tell you why I'm abstaining. For example: "Let me do some more research about XYZ. I need ABC supporting information." Again, for my own sanity I do this. If I abstain without telling why, then I'm basically admitting that "I have a bias," and in reality what I'm saying is "I can't think of an argument". In essense, I have to agree, but don't want to admit that I have to agree.
If "I disagree", then things get interesting. Upon disagreeing I reply with one of the following:
- You don't understand: If I reply with you don't understand. I'll explain where I think your understanding is lacking. I'm asking you to paraphrase what I said in your own words and exemplify it to prove that you understand.
- You are uninformed: This means there is a gap in your knowledge. I will explain where that gap is, and move on (unless of course, you re-reply).
- You are misinformed: You have knowledge, but that knowledge is incorrect. I will explain how the knowledge is incorrect.
- You are illogical: Your knowledge is correct, but the conclusions you are drawing contain a logical fallacy (strawman, post hoc ergo propter hoc, etc). I will tell you where the logical fallacy is.
This is always the toughest pill to swallow. If I can't think of a reason for my disagreement. Then I have to agree with you. That's just it. I can't wriggle my way out of it. I try my best to swallow that pill because I want to grow in my understanding. I'm not trying to "win". I hope you will do the same as well.
I will try my best to never say "Well, it's just my preference." When I engage in this kind of discourse. I believe that there is an objective, correct answer. It may take an entire lifetime to find that answer, but there is a correct answer. So if I (or you) say "Well that's just my preference", the conversation ends there. It's the same as projecting a bias.
This is an important term. It's a question of how important it is for me to find the answer to a given claim.
After seeing this introductory wall of text, ask yourself this "what of it?" question. Do you really care to continue? You may not value the knowledge/finding the answer to this question as much as I do. That's totally fine. Just say it and it'll save both of us some time.