How To Argue Effectively, or Why Cheerleading Is Not a Sport

A few years ago, I decided to go off topic in my World Literature class.  I had been thinking of a question that was in the news at that time, whether or not college cheerleading should be covered (and protected) as a sport.

I thought it would be a good discussion to have, and thought it could promote some spirited debate.  But I had not counted on Flo.

Now this class was full of bright, well-spoken students (I miss those classes,) and Flo was no exception.  She was one of my favorite kids, and was eloquent and headstrong.  But I was extremely disappointed to learn she had no ability at forming an intelligent argument and supporting it.

She felt (very strongly,) that cheerleading was a sport (of course!)  While she was not a cheerleader herself, I think she took it as a gender issue, and defended it vigorously (because, OMG it totally is!)

But her argument was basically this:  "It is so!"

And that was all the evidence she could provide, other than "Cheerleading is like really hard, Mr. Crumpler!"  I tried to lead the class in a discussion about what defines a sport, and establish some criteria and see what does and does not fit those criteria.

Her response was to say "But it is a sport!"without any other support.  It was very disappointing, because here was an intelligent girl, who had no ability to make a cogent argument, and was merely arguing.

So here's my point: there is a difference between arguing (having an emotional exchange on a subject where one stubbornly adheres to one's point out of passionate commitment to your viewpoint in the hopes that your opponent gives up,) and forming and supporting an argument (establishing logical parameters for your point and providing examples and evidence for each statement in order to convince your opponent of the rightness of your cause.)

For the purpose of the discussion, let's separate them into squabbling and debating.  Flo was squabbling with me when what I wanted to do was debate.

And I think the reason for this disconnect was that Flo, like the majority of kids her age, never learned to actually debate, because we no longer encourage rational thought in school, only retention and formulaic response.

So here is my plan:  I want to outline here the basics of how to argue effectively.  Rather than limiting the teaching of debate to competitions, I want to give an example of the basics debate-style discussion for students.  Here I go.

To begin, we have to establish the reasons for having the argument.  There needs to be a clear goal before you begin, or else you are wasting your (and everyone else's) time.  What do you want to accomplish as a result of having the discussion?

Generally, one enters into a debate for one of three reasons:

1. To convince your opponent to come around to your point of view, in which case your goal is to end up with your opponent coming around to your way of thinking and agree with you at the end of the discussion.

2. To defend your own point of view as valid, in which your opponent does not have to end up agreeing with you, but rather to accept your view as an acceptable viewpoint, and that your points have merit.

3. To disprove or invalidate your opponent's beliefs or assertions when you have no stake whatsoever in the discussion, and do not wish to convince them of your beliefs or assertions, merely that theirs are wrong or invalid.  In this case, you are an asshole.  Stop that.

Once you know what your goal is, you can move towards it, and stop talking when you are done (that part is covered in the advanced class.)

Next, you must establish the parameters of the discussion.  You need to make sure that you are both on the same page, and talking about the same subject.  If you've ever spent 45 minutes arguing with someone only to find out you both agree, you will understand the need for this.

In the discussion I mentioned above, Flo and I were not talking about the same thing, because she was not joining in with the rest of the class' discussion of what constitutes a sport.  If you cannot settle on parameters and criteria, you will argue in circles.  When discussing whether or not a book is good, you would need to decide what makes a good book (prose style, character development, ability to hold up a broken couch, chewiness, etc.)

Often, establishing this up front will save you some time.  Agree to some criteria, and then evaluate each point by those parameters.  If an argument does not fit those parameters ("I don't think Michael Jackson could have done all those things he was accused of because Thriller was the best selling album of all time!") it should be discarded.

Then, make your points one by one, using evidence to support them.  Make sure your evidence is reliable, and be prepared to concede a point when your evidence does not hold up to scrutiny.  If you cannot come up with any relevant evidence to support your point ("the Seahawks are the best NFL team because they have the prettiest helmets,"then drop it, you are wasting time and it weakens your overall argument.

For this part, there are some rules you MUST follow to have a real discussion instead of a squabble.

1. Share.  Each side has to have a chance to speak and present their case without interruptions.  You can use a moderator, or simply agree to how you wish to conduct the debate.  Allowing one side to make all their points and then the other side makes their own is one way, with a final summation to counter the other side's point is one way, or you could go point by point, where one side presents its point undisturbed, and then the other gets to rebut, and when the first has exhausted his or her points, the other side offers theirs, while the first rebuts.

There are plenty of ways to discuss without shouting each other down, even if you don't go for a formal method of moderation (learning to do that in a marriage could save you a lot in divorce proceedings.)

2. Stick to your topic!  Don't lose sight of the final goal, and don't bring in other arguments.  Stay on the topic at hand, and don't be tempted to wander off into other, possibly related topics ("I think it's a necessity these days to have the right to carry a concealed weapon to defend myself against criminals, especially with all these thugs they let out of our overcrowded prisons because you liberals hate the death penalty!")  Likewise, if your points do not hold up to scrutiny, don't try to change the subject by attacking the other person on other beliefs ("sure, solar power may not be a viable alternative to oil right now, but how many lives have been lost in America's unjust wars for oil?  How many have to die before we stop driving wasteful SUV's?")

3. You are arguing against a viewpoint, not the other person.  This is when things can get ugly, and it is often the sign of a weak argument (or at least comes off that way, so you should restrain yourself.)  We have all see ad hominem attacks in political ads, where you do not seek to counter an opponents actual political views, you go after his or her personal traits.  Like the woman candidate whose opponent outed her as nerd, pointing to her hobby of playing World of Warcraft.

But another, more insidious offense is not always meant as a calculated attack.  We tend to argue with people we know well, such as family or friends.  It is hard for us to separate a person's argument from what we know of them as a person ("how can you say Lindsay Lohan is a bad role model Aunt Carol, you have like seven DUI's!")

Remember to respond to what the other person is saying, not what they've done.  If you can't refute their claim without attacking them, you can't refute the point, period.  By the way, this is another good one to learn if you want to have a more stable marriage.  When someone points out that you have not taken out the garbage, it does nothing to counter that fact by pointing out that the other someone has not done the laundry.  You still didn't take out the damn garbage, and that's that.

4. Be ready to be wrong.  This one is especially difficult (so they tell me, I've never had to experience it myself, of course.)  If you are entering into an argument fairly, you have to come with an open mind and actually listen to what the other person says.

This means that you may hear an argument that actually makes you challenge long held beliefs.  Don't be afraid of this, embrace it, because it represents personal growth in its most dynamic form.  Listen to the argument presented, and accept that not only may they have merit, they may have more merit than your own.

Do not fear enlightenment, even if it hurts to be wrong.

So these are the basics I'd like every high school student to learn, and that I have used with my own kids since birth.  It is no different from the concepts laid out by Greek philosophers, Buddhist masters, and the very underpinnings of the scientific method.

Maybe it's time we gave it more importance than say, taking diagnostic tests and comparing them to the previous diagnostic tests in order to predict how students will do on the tests that will predict how they will do in real life where they will not use anything on the tests.

But what do I know?

*For the record- the definition we established was that a sport had to be an physical activity with a clear, quantifiable determiner of victory, such as points, goals, or time.  Sorry gymnasts, and cheerleaders, what you got there is an athletic event, not a sport.*