Debate 101

Many otherwise-intelligent men can be seen embroiled in useless debates. In fact, they usually end up losing their cool in the process, making such arguments worse than merely useless. More often than not, what makes them lose their temper is the utterly and pathetically illogical nature of their opponents’ arguments. If you do not believe me, ask any conscientious husband who has not yet given up on logic. Too much loyalty to truth and logic can be injurious to health.

The first impulse of a good man when somebody spews ranked nonsense is to dispute it on the spot. Or at least put the record straight for the benefit of interested bystanders, and (by extension) of future generations. The sentiment is completely understandable; in fact, it is commendable.

Maturity, however, is realizing that never in the whole history of such debates between Homo sapiens has anybody bothered to pore over the transcript of what was said, at what time, and by whom. Also, that no future generation (or the present one for that matter) cares in the slightest. Your opponent certainly does not. But he or she loves putting you into a position where you feel it is your duty to say a great number of things –a hopelessly impossible goal that you set for yourself. It is unlikely that you will be able to say a fraction of what you have in mind, leaving you exasperated. And your frustration will only double if you defy the odds by managing to say it all, only to realize that nobody was listening.

Becoming frantic and overeager to make this crucial point or that definitive one is absolutely the wrong way to go about it. Being logical in debates, while no-doubt important, is by no means enough. It is hardly wise to be triggered by stupid things into having to do all the work when all your opponent needs to do is occasionally utter progressively increasing nonsense to keep you going. It is true that a wise man owes it to his decency (if to nothing else) that he makes sense and does not contradict himself. But he must ensure two things in addition to being sensible and logically consistent. One: no matter how strongly provoked by sheer tripe, he does not let his temper get the better of his judgment and demeanour. Two: he makes his opponent do most of the work during a debate. To try and counter every foolishness thrown one’s way is neither noble nor heroic. It is stupid!

Ignorance, they say, is bliss. So it is that those who are way too dumb to realize how little sense they make enjoy a definite head start against sensible folks. This is the context in which Imam Ali (AS) remarked that every time he argued with a fool, he lost. That fools ought to be avoided is beyond debate in principle. There are situations, however, where it is impossible to effectively put this principle into practice. Marriage, for one, is an arrangement that places serious limitations when it comes to changing the channel, so to speak.

Even in situations that warrant a response, men often go into lengthy rebuttals that are as exhausting and frustrating as they are futile. When arguing with an individual who is not very smart, usually all one needs to point out is that the ‘evidence’ that has been brought to bear is false or is irrelevant or insufficient for the conclusion that it is supposed to lead to. Nothing infuriates fools more than such a curt and assured response. On the other hand, nothing gives them more satisfaction than a man going into painstaking sermons explaining himself (fruitlessly) for the umpteenth time.

In situations where there is no option but to argue, probably the best way to avoid endless frustration is to remember that no matter how equipped you are with convincing ripostes, not every accusation or unfavourable assessment is worth responding to. 

Some professional debaters, though not fools in the traditional sense, consciously adopt a similar tactic. In either case, if you allow the debate to be dragged down to the level of your debating adversary, he is sure to beat you on account of his superior experience. When you are unavoidably involved in debate with such an individual, it is imperative that you act in such a way that frustration and rage are experienced by the other party, not by you. This skill can be mastered to any degree, but only with focussed, persistent effort.

What makes it a difficult skill to acquire is the fact that man has a built-in defence mechanism that makes him instinctively defend anything that even looks like a criticism of his person or philosophy. Such is the strength of this impulse that sometimes he starts passionately arguing on a tangent without pausing to think that it serves no purpose at all. If he does not guard against it, this sort of hypersensitivity can easily get the better of his good judgment, even if he holds by far the more sensible position on the principal matter at issue. Like a man possessed, he could start rebutting every point made by the opponent, exhausting himself pointlessly. He could even start defending things he does not subscribe to. All without realizing what he is doing!

In situations where there is no option but to argue, probably the best way to avoid endless frustration is to remember that no matter how equipped you are with convincing ripostes, not every accusation or unfavourable assessment is worth responding to. The less you exert yourself in such matters, the better. It is good practice therefore to tell your opponent up front that you are not interested in, and will not respond to, an A-Z list of everything wrong with you or your stance. But that he is welcome to present his strongest argument, instead. Chances are that (like all others) it is a pathetic one, and you can therefore demolish it by curtly pointing out how bad it is. This sort of response is likely to take minimal toll on your energy and cheer. Besides, few things can be more deflating for fools and those with an unduly high opinion of their debating prowess.