Ask HN: How to Get Better at Arguing? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: How to Get Better at Arguing?

18 pointsdivan15 comments

I want to get better at rhetoric and argumentation, but I find it hard to find good books/videos/resources to learn it, let alone practice.

I find valuable insights in the Artistothle or Schopenhauer books, which is both fascinating and frustrating, as I'm expecting more modern books to be on the subject.

Another discovery is the books for argumentation for lawyers – seem to be a decent mix of philosophical depth and practicality.

I had hoped to find good books from the debating community, but most recommendations are paper-only from the 80s/90s, or overly focused on competitive debates.

This search for good resources on the fundamentals of argumentation seems to be quite a challenge. Perhaps I can find some good recommendations from the HN community.

View on HN

Perhaps "persuasion" would be better than "arguing."

"Arguing" invokes thoughts fighting; attacking the other side's beliefs. The natural response to attack is defense, no matter how wrong/incorrect the beliefs may be.

On the other hand, "persuasion" is working together; starting with where beliefs are common; not where they differ. Persuasion doesn't try to force people to change their mind, instead it offers them the opportunity to change their mind. This allows the other side to change their mind on their own.

Most people make decisions (beliefs) based on emotion, then later back them up with logic. So it is usually more effective to work at the emotional level than the logical level.

Finally, probably the most important lesson is not all people can be persuaded. If a person doesn't have even the tiniest desire to change their mind, no amount of persuasion/arguing can change them.

I learned most of this from direct response marketers, the guys who (are madly successful) at getting you to buy things.

This book is based on similar techniques: "Stop your divorce!: How to stop your divorce or lover's rejection ... even if you're the only one who wants to stop it"[1]

[1]: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/2114648

I recently had the opportunity to dive into ‘Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning,’ offered by The Great Courses (no affiliation, just a happy customer). This course was a game-changer for me, significantly sharpening my reasoning and debate skills. It’s structured to not only introduce the fundamentals of sound argumentation but also to apply these principles through practical examples and exercises. I found the content to be both accessible and deeply enriching, providing insights that have been immediately applicable in my professional and personal communications. For anyone looking to enhance their persuasive abilities and understand the mechanics of effective argumentation, I highly recommend this course.

I used to do competitive debate. I don't recommend learning anything about that world, or using their recommendations. Competitive debate overlaps with real-world speaking, in the same way that competitive programming overlaps with actual software development. That is to say, there is very little overlap, and some actively harmful habits one will pick up from the former. It took me years to unwind all those "lessons" from debate club.

I've found the Socratic method to be an effective way to persuade people. Ask questions, figure out why a person believes what they believe. Do your best to "steelman" their point of view, and then share yours. A lot of the time, people just want to be heard.

Oh, that's interesting, thank you for bringing up this analogy.

Yeah, I guess I'm looking into two aspects:

1) understanding argumentation framework 2) practicing in the real world conversations

For example, one of the recent revelations for me was the fact that people typically have judgement or belief (planted in their head by society or parents), and then use logic to build the arguments in order to support their view. So the confirmation bias is not really a bias, but pretty much a 'default' mode. That kinda changes the whole game, as it becomes clear that attacking person's arguments and bringing up yours is kinda futile most of the time. I.e. They didn't build their conclusions based on these arguments in a first place. In fact, they might not even believe in those arguments, but bring them up because they've heard them used by others in the similar debate.

And if you present them your arguments, they will just dismiss it as cherrypicking or the lie. So basically you can't use your own arguments supporting your view to win the debate. But if you can take arguments that person brought up (and thus signed that they believe in them) and use them to build your conclusion – that's much more powerful move. In a way that require you to agree with some arguments, so you have common language and set of facts you both agree.

So I'm looking to read more about debating at this kind of level...

What you’re describing to me sounds more like psychology. Some people are able to become famous through sheer understanding of human psychology - not because they have a worthwhile argument to make

    But if you can take arguments that person brought up (and thus signed that they believe in them) and use them to build your conclusion – that's much more powerful move.

In debate, we called this type of argument a “turn”. As in, you “turned” the opponent’s argument in one of two keys ways:

1 - Given their original premise and a positive outcome, show how the positive outcome actually comes from one of your premises instead.

2 - If they are attempting to dispute any of your points, show how the negative effects actually originate from THEIR premise, not yours.

———-

I’ll reiterate, this kind of argumentation is effective in competitive debate, but will make you no friends in the real world. The positions are assigned ahead of time - you might personally disagree with the case, but you have to argue it confidently and set aside your morals and beliefs. Furthermore, a round is only 30 minutes, and you go back to being friendly with the opponent as soon as it’s over.

Resource from Monty Python here ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

I really liked this talk by Sandi Metz on being persuasive.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VzWLGMtXflg

Influence, New and Expanded: The Psychology of Persuasion https://a.co/d/917saBb

Maybe step back a little and consider the outcomes you're seeking.

Argumentation is one path and tactic for achieving an alignment with a group of people. However, framing anything as combative can have some negative tradeoffs.

My experience is that more cooperative tactics like intent listening, questions, and yes-and can help broker a positive alignment with fewer negative tradeoffs.

If you switch mindsets you'll find lots of business books about effective communication, persuasion, and change management.

Good luck!

Not sure if this is the sort of thing that you're looking for, but the book I used during my critical thinking class might be useful:

Critical Thinking: An Introduction to the Basic Skills, written by William Hughes, Jonathan Lavery, and Katheryn Doran.

The obvious Monty Python sketch comes to mind: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

edit: I'm an idiot and you seem to have already looked into debate club stuff and you seem to be looking more recent written or online references? ---

I'm guessing being able to express what you've learned permissively is the most important part of arguing effectively?

In which case, for the US I'd probably look into ToastMasters (or maybe a debate club if your in a college area)

never split the difference by chris voss comes to mind.

understanding your counterparts matters more than winning arguments.

Get better at understanding and articulating the opposing viewpoint.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com