I have had the great privilege of discussing and debating many issues with a wide variety of persons on Facebook — issues on such topics as  politics, religion, culture, and historical events, among others.  I belong to several Facebook groups and have friends who run the gamut from the far left to the ultra right wing, especially in regards to politics.  I have always tried to maintain an objective mode in these discussions without getting into personal attacks or feelings of animosity no matter how great the urge may be.  I learned a long time ago in my first college course, English 101, from a fine Scottish gentleman and long time mentor and friend, not to bring the subjective “I” into a debate, but stick to the issue at hand.  I also learned from him the art of being a devil’s advocate in order to bring out the best in my opponent’s argument and to serve as a learning tool.

Be that as it may, and for whatever reason, I often find myself in a dialogue where the other person wants to turn the discussion into a tug of war by using “you” messages, as if “you are wrong” and “I am right” (no matter what you say, you can’t convince me) when I’m not interested in being right or wrong, but in learning about the issue through give and take of opinions.  So with that in mind, I want to offer some comments, including suggestions, drawn from my experience in studying and discussing philosophical ideas over the years, and engaging in friendly and cordial discourse surrounding an issue by staying on topic in an objective manner.

The kind of dialogue that I want to enter into is one of an “assertive inquiry”.which blends the explicit expression of ones own thinking (advocacy) with a sincere exploration of the thinking of the other person (inquiry).  It means that one must clearly articulate ones own ideas and sharing facts and reasoning behind them with genuinely inquiring into the thoughts and reasoning of the other person.

Of course, to do this, the individuals involved in the discussion need to embrace a particular stance about their individual role in the discussion in a clear and objective manner without resorting to “you” messages, simply stating their opinions in an objective fashion.  It goes something like this: “I have a viewpoint that I feel is important in my value system and understanding of the issue, but I may be missing something.  What am I messing? What is your view and why do you hold this view?”  When you do this objectively, you remain open to the possibility that you may indeed be missing somethings and you open yourself up to the real possibility that you may change you mind on it, or at least modify your view.  In fact, in the end, you may wind up discovering that there is no right or wrong view, but perhaps merely different perspectives on the issue that are possible to live with.

Contrast this to someone who comes into a discussion with the only objective of convincing others that he or she is right.  This type of person will advocate his or her position in the strongest possible terms, seeking to convince others and to win the argument.  He or she will be less inclined to listen, or they will listen with the intent of finding flaws in the other’s arguments, resulting in discord and impasse.  (Sometimes the only result will be an impasse, but at least it was a result of objective discussion by listening to all sides).

There are at least three things necessary in this type of discussion:  1.  advocating your own position and then inviting responses; 2.  paraphrasing what you believe to be the other person’s view and inquiring as to the validity of your understanding. (“Is what you are saying . . . ?”  “It sounds to me that what you are saying is . . .  Is this accurate?” ; 3.  Explaining a gap in your understanding of the other person’s views and asking for more information. (“I’m not sure how you arrived at your position.  Could you tell me more?”)

One of the best ways to explain one’s position, or question the other person’s position is by using an analogy, a very old tool in philosophy.  Just be sure that the analogy is sound and fits adequately the question at hand without going way out on a tangent that is not germane to the issue.

Inquiry leads the other person to genuinely reflect on and hear your own advocacy rather than ignoring it and making their own advocacy without any attention to inquiring about yours, again in an objective fashion.  The goal is to create a culture of inquiry

Lastly here are a few pointers I have found useful to making any discussion or debate amenable and more meaningful:

–  Clearly define the issue and stay on topic;

–  Present your view clearly and concisely and be sure you understand exactly the view of the opponent, not your own bias view of what you think he or she is advocating.  Questions must be asked and answered clearly and concisely.

–  Be logical.  To simply state that the other person is wrong is to quickly arrive at an impasse.  You must state logically why the other person’s side doesn’t make sense (if it doesn’t).  Then you must use sound logic, referring to bona fide data to support your logical conclusions.  (If all A are B and all B are C, then it stands to reason that all A are C.  If in discussing the facts you discover that all A is, in fact, no all B, then you are on the way to winning the debate.).

–  Use primary sources.  Secondary sources are often hearsay.  (If, for example, your opponent says he heard something about something, ask who said it, when did he say it, and in what context.  Nothing is more prevalent in the social media than misquotes taken out of context).

–  Do NOT criticize the opponent.  Only criticize what he says, if in fact, it can be criticized.  (The same restriction holds true in criticizing the character of other people, such as public figures.  Criticize their actions or words, not their character).  Bringing personality or questioning the credentials of the person is the quickest way to end a discussion and invoke feelings of animosity.  (They may actually be idiots, but to call them so in a debate only inflames the emotions and is of no use in settling the issue(s) at hand).

–  Use examples — facts and pieces of evidence to support your view.  Ask for examples, data, evidence from the other person to support their’s.  (Videos and blogs on the internet serve no purpose unless verified as factual data with time, place, context, and a citation as to who created the video and/or blog).

–  Avoid unproven and non factual conspiracy theories.  (The President is a major stock holder in a big oil company and that is why we invaded Iraq.  The reason America hands out $B of dollar to foreign countries is to buy their support . . . )

–  Don’t start arguing about another point, even though it may be related.  It throws the discussion of the main issue off track.

–  Don’t misrepresent your opponents position by attacking the position of someone else, falsely accusing your opponent of holding the other position, again not germane to the main topic.  (If you are arguing whether some law is constitutional, don’t bring up the idea that the law is morally flawed based on a religious text.  You are only trying to decide if it’s constitutional, not moral according to a particular moral code).

–  Though human, the possibility exists of getting angry or frustrated, but do not lose control of logic.  When you let your emotions take over the discussion, you stop listening to your opponent.  Let the person talk.  The more he talks, the more he may make a mistake or misspeak, especially if he let’s his own emotions get in the way of logic.

Needless to say, most discussions in the social media wind up with simple opinions and assertions.  Most people who enter into long diatribes in the comments’ section of a post do not want to debate, they only want to state their opinion(s).  There is nothing wrong with that.  But carefully articulating one’s position in a logical matter while seeking to understand the points of view of others leads to a more admirable and peaceful means of communication.  It also leads to a more peaceful world to live in — IMO.