I've repeatedly found that the ability to paraphrase and summarise the opposing positions in a way that the opposition can agree with, is a good indicator of whether someone is interested in, and able to have a meaningful discussion in a controversial subject.
It might be illuminating to compare this heuristic to the requirement of a decent scientific paper to summarise related work properly.
Even in the case of subjective debates, having all common arguments summarized in one place with links to relevant essays and source material from the original authors about their intentions would be useful.
The problem is that it makes it hard to summarize a set of arguments; for example, to focus on points of agreement or disagreement. Which I think tends to encourage back-and-forth arguments.
The most useful and effective tool I've come across to use in a debate is to get the two sides to outline the position and argument of their critics as clearly as hey can, to the satisfaction of their critics, before engaging in the debate. That's not really practical in internet forum comment wars, but I think if you come to the table with this spirit in mind it can be very helpful.
Arming yourself with rhetorical weapons like this, especially if you rather view them as tools for thinking, will get you some way but I think rarely aid in reaching consensus or understanding where disagreement comes from.
I think it would help discuss validity of an argument very efficiently. I often find myself having to parse premises out of prose in order to express what I disagree with and as surprising as it sounds sometimes it gets difficult because the author might like being wordy.
Main arguments are a matter of interpretation, so your second sentence opposes, rather than supporting, the first.
Summarizing is interpretation, since it is relaying the important points of the source, and determining what is important is a matter of interpretation.
I've found that it pays to argue all sides of a discussion. Provide arguments in favor of the other's opinion, provide arguments against your own position, counter-arguments against your arguments, etc., all the while providing context and relative valuations of the arguments. When the other party is not capable of arguing their case or they need to be convinced that your case is superior, then this will not only broaden your view on the subject, but it will also give you a good chance of steering the outcome towards the solution you prefer.
Of course, if you are just discussing matters with smart colleagues to flesh out dis(advantages), then you don't have to do that much work and can just ride the waves.
depends. one cannot spend the whole life dissecting and acquiring all facts, sometimes we just delegate thinking, but the result is that it leaves us unable to defend the opinion because it wasn't our to begin with, regardless of how much the case built by the third party was compelling and fact based
so for example I've read an interesting opinion about game of thrones and why the latter season were less interesting, and it made the case that the story shifted from sociological to psychological drama and it set a completely different tone - some day later there was a similar debate on a forum but while the position was interesting I didn't had the ability to articulate it because a) it isn't my field of expertise and b) I didn't spent time dissecting the issue myself building an opinion, it was delegated.
and so I just wrote down two lines - hey guys check out what this author wrote on the subject - because it was interesting and it seemed well checked and I wanted to see if somebody was able to point out faults in the reasoning I didn't catch because of my limited expertise in the matter
sometimes who arguments by linking doesn't want to convince anyone, but wants to proxy debate an opinion piece by collecting and contrasting other opinion on the subject
I prefer to interpret the opposing party in such discussions as serving a vital function in a Socratic dialogue. Whether or not IHBT, it's useful to argue the issue with an opposing viewpoint.
Espousing nuanced opinions and making effective arguments are often at odds though. It's very easy for people to lose the thread of an argument if it is chock full of footnotes.
I try to aim for "strong opinions, weakly held" - present a specific, actionable and strong position but be open to changing it if a better argument is made.
I'm presenting arguments based on what the author says, and you're presenting arguments based on the title and embedded quotes. All one has to do is read the piece. It's really not that hard!
It might be illuminating to compare this heuristic to the requirement of a decent scientific paper to summarise related work properly.
reply