Off Duty Mom

Thoughts from an exhausted mom who is NEVER really "off duty"

Archive for the tag “argument”

The False Equivalence

In 2020, I missed being in my classroom as an On Duty Teacher and decided to create a series of lessons for anyone who felt like learning them.

Our series on How To Be a Better Arguer continues…

Lesson #10

The False Equivalence: what are we to do when someone suggests that two things, people, or ideas are the same while ignoring their differences?

I hate this one. People use it ALL THE TIME. And those people suck.

Consider this:

Person “A”: “I think it’s morally wrong to unleash a secret police force on peaceful protestors and it’s a classic indicator of Fascism in the making.”

Person “B”: “what? We should allow a bunch of thugs and rioters to lock people in public buildings and set them on fire? Lock ‘em all up. They deserve what they get.”

Photo by Monstera on Pexels.com

Insert eye roll here.

The logical fallacy here (and, remember, a logical fallacy is an ERROR. It’s a sign of weak arguments. It’s invalid.) is in the suggestion that the actions of armed military forces deployed by the US government are EQUIVALENT to citizen protestors.

Frankly, there’s an Ad Hominem attack in there, too. Did you catch it in Person B’s statement?

Anywho…

To have a valid argument, Person B, you’ll have to either use two equivalent entities in your message or prove (remember your data and warrant) that the two entities you use in your statement are actually already equivalent.

Now, for two entities to be equivalent, they have to have more characteristics in common than not. And the similarities you suggest have to bear equivalent weight, severity, or importance. For example, people call both Joe Biden and Donald Trump “sexual assaulters.” But, are the allegations, instances, and types of assault truly comparable? For you to make the argument that they’re both terrible choices for President because they’re both rapey, you’ll have to show that they are. (Please note: this article was originally written in the summer of 2020)

So, in our previous example, armed secret military police physically injuring unarmed protestors MUST be equally wrong, frequent, severe, deplorable, harmful, and “bad for America” as are the actions of people exercising First Amendment rights and speaking out (ironically) against police brutality.

Frankly, in the initial example, Person B focuses on one PART of a revolutionary movement: rioting and destruction. In fact, Person B referenced one specific day within one specific part of that revolutionary movement: the fires set at a police headquarters following George Floyd’s death. So, the qualifications for equivalency aren’t met: Person B’s example is not similar in duration, in number, in degree, or in value. So, this doesn’t work.

When an internet troll comes at you with “men get sexually assaulted, too!,” or “Auschwitz’s existence is proof that Confederate statues must remain intact,” you’ve got a False Equivalencer (probably not a word) on your hands.

To combat it, you point out how their argument does not apply an appropriate analogy, or how their statements do not represent equivalent subsets of information.

Good lord. “Subsets?” “Equivalent?” “Degree?” “Data?” My 11th grade Trig teacher was right: math concepts are used in other fields.

Damn.

At any rate, if you’re interested in learning more about this from people smarter than I am, check this out: https://effectiviology.com/false-equivalence/. They do a super nice job of explaining this in much more academic and think-y words.

Until next time, friends, I’m Off Duty Mom and this is my Masterclass.

#thanksforcomingtomytedtalk

“But, I don’t really have a point.”

Lesson #9 in our series on How To Be a Better Arguer

Today’s lesson: Prove it.

Photo by Lina Kivaka on Pexels.com

I was reading a thread in the comments section of a local newspaper today. There are many interesting things you can learn about your fellow locals when you check out these comments sections. You may lose your faith in humanity, though.

In a thread about whether a Christopher Columbus statue in my city should or should not be removed and put into a museum, one delightful lady was enraged by how, in her opinion, this would be destroying history.

Oh. Lordy.

Two things stuck out for me in her comments: she had no backing for her thoughts, and she said at one point that everyone she’s talked to (not sure why she felt it necessary to note that she’s gone off on this topic with other people, too) all know that she’s “not going to budge” on this. No one can convince her to change her mind.

See… that’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.

Let’s take each of these issues separately. First, let’s consider her comments. She stated, repeatedly, but in slightly different terms each time, that her position was that removing statues like this one was a futile and irresponsible attempt to ignore history and was even creating a societal problem where people would no longer learn about important moments and figures of the past.

But, ya know, just some lady saying so doesn’t make that true.

For any real intellectual debate on a topic, you, minimally, have to have what we in the biz call a CLAIM, DATA, and a WARRANT.

Photo by Marcelo Barboza on Pexels.com

A claim is a statement of assertion. In this case, I suppose it would be something like, “The local Christopher Columbus statue should not be removed to a museum because doing so would lead to fewer people learning about historical moments and people, even if those moments or people do not represent history about which we are proud.”

Then, you have to have some data to back that up. Statistics, examples, expert opinions, quotes from reliable news sources…these are the kinds of things that you need to have. Karen comes close when she says that Auschwitz was left standing as a reminder of history we’d rather not repeat, so this should, too, and for the same reason.

But, that’s a pretty weak example. I’ll dig into this more next time when I discuss the “False Equivalency Fallacy.”

But, third, you need to have a “warrant.” That’s where you connect your data and your claim, explaining HOW your data supports your claim.

She’s missing this entirely. She’d have to explain how Auschwitz and the local Christopher Columbus statue relate and thus how the Auschwitz example proves she’s correct about the local Christopher Columbus statue. But, see, she can’t logically do that, because as one of my teaching colleagues pointed out to her, these two things do NOT connect. This, she does not dispute, saying then only that nobody will ever change her mind.

So that leads to my second problem. If no one can change your mind, why are you in a conversation at all? Here are the only options I can think of. Feel free to help me add to this list if you’d like:

1. You came to the comments section of a local newspaper to “school” everyone on the “right” way to look at an issue. You’ve decided to bless the readers with your glorious, unfounded and unsupported gobbledegook.

2. You thought everyone was going to agree with you and this was going to be a celebration of how awesome we all agree you are because you share our inexpert opinions.

3. You don’t understand the issue but aren’t smart or educated enough (or are too stubborn to) recognize that.

4. You aren’t willing to admit that issues do have two (or more) perspectives.

5. You think people should listen to and agree with you, but you’re not interested in extending them the same courtesy.

Photo by Afif Kusuma on Unsplash

6. You like fights.

In an earlier post, I mentioned that the point of debate was to hear each other out and (hopefully) persuade the opposition to consider (not AGREE with necessarily) your perspective. A statement of “La La La La! I’m not listening!” doesn’t exactly say, “let me explain where you’re wrong so I may persuade you to see things my way,” ya know? It also outrightly refuses to be open to considering the opposition’s ideas or where you both may agree, even if only in part.

So, what do you do in this situation? I feel like there’s not much you can do.

Photo by William Krause on Unsplash

If somebody says, “there’s nothing that will get me to change my mind,” there’s no real point, right? You’re arguing with the wind.

You can, however, try to present your side rationally. Perhaps others witnessing your discussion might still be persuaded by your words and that’s not nothin’.

Or, you can just duke it out, call her names, and let it be juvenile and ugly. I mean, you won’t get anywhere, but if you needed an anonymous victim for your verbal assaults because you just feel like getting belligerent, then, ok, I guess. I mean, I don’t officially and professionally RECOMMEND this, but, like, you CAN do it.

So, next time I’ll get into that issue if the false equivalency. I think you’ll agree that it’s all too common of a tactic used in disagreements.

Stay tuned.

As usual, I’m Off Duty Mom and this is my Masterclass.

#thankyouforcomingtomytedtalk

Try not to suck, ok?

In our ongoing series of How to Be a Better Arguer, I bring you Lesson #8

If you’re new to these lessons, scroll down. Start with the first one and then work your way back here. These lessons were originally posted on social media in 2020, but they were beloved — BELOVED, I TELL YOU! — and so they’re being reprinted here for your viewing pleasure…

Ok. Here we go…

Photo by Keira Burton on Pexels.com

Don’t be the bad guy.

This is probably the best advice I have when it comes to arguments. It works in a myriad of scenarios and is applicable to numerous parts of your life.

I’m a teacher. I’ve worked exclusively in large high schools for over 20 years and thus have seen my fair share (or more) of hallway fights.

One stands out for me when I think about “bad guys,” though.

It was the time between classes. The bell had just rung and I was standing at my desk chatting with a student. He or she (I don’t remember) was an Advanced Placement student and thus known around town more for brains than for brawn, as were the AP students who’d be coming to my room for the next class period.

Suddenly, two students burst into my classroom, entangled in one another. They hit the floor.

My desk was in the corner farthest from the door and it took me a few moments to hurdle myself over to it. By that point, the fight had slid its way from just inside my classroom doorway to just outside of it. A crowd formed, surrounding the fight and trapping me inside the room. This high school was huge so there were tons of kids to create this barrier so no other adults could easily get in. I was the only adult there, as a result.

I remember throwing a few kids aside to get them out of the way. Later my students would joke with me about hurling people like some sort of monster. I took it as a compliment. But, I was pretty powerless against the two boys I didn’t know who were on the ground trying to injure each other as much as possible.

A student of mine stepped into the crowd, grabbed the kid who was on top of the other kid and catapulted him in the opposite direction ending the bout, then, more or less, walked into my room like, “there ya go, lady, now let’s go learn some shit.”

Not all the AP kids were ALL brains and NO brawn.

But, to get to my point I actually need to tell you about the parent meeting that followed this incident.

I don’t remember everything, but I do remember sitting in a conference room with an administrator and the boy (and the father of the boy) who appeared to be the aggressor. I had never seen this kid before that day; not until he busted into my classroom, so my answer was clearly “no” when the father asked me if I had heard what the other boy had said to his son right BEFORE he stared wailing on him as the other kid curled into the fetal position, trying to protect his face (it didn’t work).

So, some boy said something mean. Alrighty. THAT boy would have been in trouble, then, particularly if it was so evil it might induce a brawl. But, the second kid became the bad guy when he knocked the snot out of Mr. Mouthy. He HAD THE UPPER HAND and just gave it away. What I witnessed that day was not a fight, but was a beating.

And, there IS a difference. If you’ve ever worked in an American high school, you might know what I mean.

If you do things the right way: ask questions, laugh in the face of the bully, use your words, stay true to yourself, take the high road, keep it classy, take pride in yourself—you win. And, you win because you showed BETTER.

If you try to argue with me about geopolitics and I retort with an ad hominem attack, I suck. I may be funny and I may feel good about sucker-punching you with words, but I’ve also shown that I’m an idiot.

Photo by RODNAE Productions on Pexels.com

Have you, like, EVER seen an 80’s movie? We root for Daniel-san, Duckie, Veronica Sawyer (sort of?), and Marty McFly. We loathe Cobra Kai, Steff (and pretty much every James Spader character ever—not just Pretty in Pink’s villain), all of The Heathers, and Biff.

Do you trust Draco Malfoy? Want to listen to advice from the kids in Carrie’s class (or her mom, jeez…)? Feel like going to see Aerosmith in ‘76 with O’Bannion? Want to have tea and crumpets and discuss closet options with Joan Crawford?

If you allow yourself to slip into attacking language, condescension, snark and sarcasm (oooh, but I do love sarcasm and admit I too often don’t take my own advice here), Red Herrings, straw man arguments, and fighting language rather than the language of discourse, you become the bully. You’re the one delivering a beating; you’re Bloody Mary, you’re Genghis Khan, you’re DOLORES UMBRIDGE.

Photo by fauxels on Pexels.com

Beating someone into argumentative submission might, on the surface, feel like winning. But, the “winners” of arguments have persuaded others to change their minds. They’re solving problems. They’re championing causes. They’re breaking down the walls that divide man. When you do this, you’re Atticus Finch! You’re Hermione Granger! Padme Amidala! Belle (oooh! A princess…)! Elle Woods! You’re (man, I want to write “Jesus,” but that feels like stepping into complicated territory…).

This really makes me want a Hermione Lego Minifigure…
Photo by Nemes Brigitta on Unsplash

When you see injustice, bullying, misunderstanding, confusion, questions, disagreement, division, hurt, pain, arrogance, and differing perspectives, think about what will get someone on your side rather than push him away. Think about who can see or hear your discussion and consider whether those folks would be turned off by your words or behavior, heading to the opposite side just because of YOU, or if you might encourage people to come TO your side, even if they’re unsure if it, just because you’re someone with whom they’d like to be associated.

This is ETHOS. An appeal to ethos is an appeal to the audience because of your CHARACTER. If you can convince people that you’re worth listening to, your message might carry.

Feel free to let me know what you think. And maybe reread “To Kill a Mockingbird.”

I’m Off Duty Mom and this is my Masterclass.

#thanksforcomingtomytedtalk

Lesson #7: A Non-Sequi-whaaaa???

NOTE: Post first written for publication in 2020

Photo by Natalie Birdy on Pexels.com

“BUT…HER E-MAILS!”

Let’s take a look at the NON-SEQUITUR.

I’ve seen this a whole lot lately: someone makes a statement in a post. These days, it’s probably about a political or social issue (or both). Someone responds with a completely different topic, typically something not at all in question.

Here’s an example: I saw on Facebook where a friend of mine posted something about the current US President having a pattern of lying (Note: at time of original publication, this referred to President Donald Trump). One response to this statement was, “Oh, so I guess Biden never lies?!”

That’s a non-sequitur. It’s a statement that does not logically follow the argument in question. Logicians would have a field day with the respondent to that post. Yikes.

See, here’s the thing: a post about one person’s lies is not necessarily an argument that another person does or does not not lie. Its not about another person at all. I might add, too, that pointing out one candidate’s flaws does not necessarily equate to an endorsement of his opponent. AND, stating that Joe Biden lies neither refutes nor proves anything about whether Donald Trump does. They’re two different arguments.

Boil it down to its simplest terms:

Person A: “Trump lies”

Person B: “Biden lies”

Person A: “Sooo…is this a statement of agreement or disagreement to what I said?”

Person B: “Neither.”

You might remember a similar fallacy from an earlier lesson: the Red Herring. The non-sequitur is similar, but the difference is in the motive.

Like the stinky fish for which it is supposedly named, the Red Herring is something a person “throws out there,” purposefully, with the intent of distracting you or putting you off of your track. It’s a diversion; a ploy.

The non-sequitur is flawed thinking. It’s a show of ignorance on a topic, inability to process intellectual discussion, fear, single-mindedness, or an honest mistake. But, it’s not malicious or conniving. Get pissed at the guy who hurls Red Herrings, but feel bad for the bloke who offers a non-sequitur.

Often, you’ll see non-sequiturs used, but it will be clear that those who use them don’t really understand what the conversation is about in the first place. Responding, “Oh, Biden doesn’t lie?” to the statement, “Trump is a liar,” assumes that the original speaker’s argument is: “Trump is a liar and is therefore the man less qualified to be president in a race between Joe Biden and him.” But, “Trump is a liar” does NOT, in and of itself, assert that at all.

So, here’s what you need to do.

Photo by Anna Tarazevich on Pexels.com

This is your response: “What do you mean by that?”

If I say, “Trump lies,” and you say, “Biden lies,” we’re just two people listing names of people who lie. The problem is that you (in this case) think we’re having a political debate whereas I just made a statement. So we need to establish:

1. Is this an argument or debate we are in? Person A didn’t appear to be making one, necessarily, but Person B surely wanted to duke it out.

2. What is your argument? Does Person B even know? What does he think we’re talking about, even?

3. What is my argument? Person B definitely messes this up.

4. Do you understand that your statement is not a logical response to mine? No. No. No, he doesn’t.

It would have been best if Mr. “Bbbbbbut Biden!!!! Aghhh the Dems!!!!!” had asked Mr. “Trump lies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” What he meant by that. There’s lots he could have meant by that…

-Trump’s ability to fabricate people, events, and cures for global pandemics with household products is impressive.

-All politicians are immoral and the record of Trump’s lies is but one example.

-The rate at which our current president lies indicates that he is an inappropriate choice to lead the Free World.

Etc., etc.

Had Mr. “Bbbbbbut Biden!!!! Aghhh the Dems!!!!!” asked, if he’s Right-leaning, he can respond with something that makes sense.

If Mr. “Trump lies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” Follows up with “what do you mean by that?” to the creator of the non-sequitur, he could let him know that Mr. Biden’s record of truth and lies is a different argument altogether. And, “hey, if you want, we can talk about that — in another thread…” might be the follow-up to that.

Photo by Simone Secci on Unsplash

“What do you mean by that?” (Patent pending) is also useful as a response to

-racist/sexist/demeaning/offensive/classless “jokes”

-Ad Hominem attacks

-condescending comments

-a Red Herring (if you can catch it)

-someone clearly uninformed or misinformed on a topic

I wish I remembered to use “What do you mean by that?” more often. I’ll smile if I see you use it in the future. 💛

I’m Off Duty Mom and this is my Masterclass.

#thanksforcomingtomytedtalk

Argue Better: Lesson #6

Photo by Polina Kovaleva on Pexels.com

So, like, what does it mean to be “right” about something?

We’ve been taking a look at formal arguments, how to avoid flawed reasoning, and how to respond to illogical remarks. But, LOGIC isn’t the only means by which something can be right or wrong. People can argue about morality, religion, politics, ethics, and other concepts where “right” and “wrong” might depend on how you look at things, where you’re from, or any one of a bazillion factors.

It is possible for both opposing parties in an argument, or even multiple parties in an argument, to be “right,” if we’re willing to accept that the word “right” doesn’t always have a clear and singular definition.

Photo by Arturo Rey on Unsplash

Think about this question: If Jesus went to the US polls in November of 2016, which candidate would He have voted for in the Presidential race?

Trick question. There isn’t a right answer to this. At least there isn’t in the technical sense. So, here is where we get back to that idea that nobody cares about your opinion. You can like or dislike a candidate, you can have personal feelings about politics in general. You can call the Bible the ultimate guide to life, or refer to it all as Christian Mythology. But, that hypothetical question about who gets Jesus’ vote? All you can do there is assess WHY your answer might be what it is.

Part of the problem with healthy debate comes from two opposing sides who try to prove that the other is wrong. But, “wrong” is subjective and neither side is willing to dig into WHY it takes the stance it does. And this is where discourse devolves into a fight.

Instead, you really have to take your personal beliefs out of the equation. When you don’t, you end up with an even worse relationship with your discussion partner than when you started. If I used my belief that cats are all demonic furmonsters, but you loooove cats with all of their fuzzy snuggliness, for example, we might as well just not talk. My “opinion” is irrelevant. And we’ll get nowhere.

And, I might add, that my personal experiences are also irrelevant. I might have had nothing but bad experiences with scratchy, hissy, allergy-inducing cat devils, but my experience is proof of nothing. I can talk about it, but what would it prove? Could I get you to care or change your mind? Would any amount of my sneezing convince you to kick out Mr. Flooferton and go get a goldfish?

This is one reason why climate change, racism, the #MeToo movement, healthcare, college tuition, and so many hot-button social and political issues are so disputed. People have vastly different personal experiences and far too many of those people are using those experiences as proof or justification for their arguments. But, climate change can be a thing whether or not you’re personally hot or cold right now. Racism can exist even if you have “a Black friend” or you have not personally witnessed, experienced or perpetrated it.

Photo by Gary Barnes on Pexels.com

So, our arguments with one another have to stop being about trying to convince someone of what is RIGHT. That will never mean the same thing to everyone. You can’t convince someone that your version of right-ness is best. Instead, these conversations should be centered around how to solve problems, how to work together instead of against one another, and how to leave this planet better than how we found it. Often, arguments, unlike fights, are about listening as much as they are about contributing.

Photo by LOGAN WEAVER on Unsplash

—-“It isn’t right for people to loot and destroy businesses in their own community.”

—-“But, it isn’t right for the community to stay silent as it’s citizens needlessly die.”

—-“But it isn’t right to violently riot and fight with police because they risk their lives on the job to protect us.”

—-“But it isn’t right for someone to be killed by a police officer due to direct force, especially when he’s been subdued and the potential threat against that officer is no longer existent.”

->None of those above people will ever persuade any of the others if they stick with this “right” line of debate.

Instead the conversation should shift to (and YOU can be the one to shift it!!!):

“What would it look like to have a truly safe community where everyone would live without fear of dying OR being looted?”

“What steps should be taken so that police officers can be more prepared for high-pressure situations without bringing harm to other human beings?”

“How can we utilize the system as it is to leverage better results for crimes both real and alleged?”

“How can we make our neighborhood one where law enforcement has positive interactions with the citizens and the citizens are respectful of the officers’ service to them?”

“Without pointing fingers or assigning blame for past problems, how can all have more peace?”

That’s just a start…

Thanks, y’all. Hope you’ve enjoyed my Masterclass. 😉

#thanksforcomingtomytedtalk

Lesson #5

Photo by fauxels on Pexels.com

We want the same things.

Fundamentally, there are some basic things we all agree on (ya know, for the most part). Like, I think we all agree that breathing is nice. And the world can be a better place. No matter your disagreement, there’s always common ground you can find.

In this lesson, I’m going to assume you’re in an argument in its academic sense.

Generally, that’s the perspective for all of the lessons: showing you how to use the power of persuasion. If you’re just shootin’ the breeze about who the best 80s hair metal band is or why cats are better than dogs (they are not, I beg your pardon and thank you very much), seek advice elsewhere.

I’m talking about how to discuss reproductive rights with THAT aunt of yours at Thanksgiving, or how to be taken seriously in a conference room where you’re trying to convince your coworkers that your idea for that new account is the best idea, or how to help someone who has an “opinion” on Black Lives Matter see the error of their ways.

You start with common ground. What is accepted by both sides?

Aristotle is considered the the granddaddy of Rhetoric. His favorite type of spoken rhetoric was called “Deliberative” rhetoric (sometimes called “Deliberative Oratory” when used in speeches).

Deliberative rhetoric focuses on the future. So, you use future-tense verbs as much as you can.

If you dwelled on the past or focused mostly on what has been, the focus is usually to find blame. When we look at an issue, let’s say…institutional racism, we might be inclined to argue about the past. But, statements or claims like “MY family never owned slaves” or “What about all of that black-on-black crime that keeps happening?!?!?!” don’t do anything but antagonize.

When you speak in the present tense, you’re complaining or praising. Examples of this might include that “Many Secret Service Agents [are] just waiting for action” when daring protestors to get nearer to you. Or, another example might be saying, “Laziness is a trait in Blacks” (yep. You read that right. But to be fair, if you did, indeed, say that and a disgruntled and only semi-credible former employee published it in a tell-all book, it would be an example of Demonstrative rhetoric).

Present tense speaking is great for a commencement address or a commendation. But, the biggest problem with it, Aristotle found, was that Demonstrative rhetoric was divisive. It puts people in categories. Consider the difference between the statements “You are an American” versus “You were an American.” Present tense debate is values based: who are you, what do you stand for, how do you identify right here and now?

Future tense verbs used in a discussion make the conversation about problem-solving.

PAST TENSE: Judicial rhetoric (sometimes also called Forensic rhetoric: it’s the language of lawyers and detectives)

—What happened?

—Who did this?

—Who is to blame or praise for what’s been done?

PRESENT TENSE: Demonstrative rhetoric (sometimes also called Epideictic rhetoric: it’s the language of award presenters, pastors, motivational speakers, and supremacists)

—Who are we?

—What makes you one of us?

—What are our ideals?

—What good or bad qualities to you/we have?

FUTURE TENSE: Deliberative rhetoric: it’s the language of peacemakers, policy writers, problem solvers, leaders, and decision makers

—What can we do about this?

—How should we solve our problems?

—Where are we heading?

You can control the direction of your argument by shifting the verb tense. Consider this:

Person A: “Life starts at conception (present tense). Women who’ve had abortions are evil.” (there’s a little past and a little present tense there)

Person B: “I have rights guaranteed as a result of Roe v. Wade. (a little past and present tense)

Person C: We all can agree, though, that we like personal liberties and we’d like to see better healthcare and fewer lives lost in general in the future, right?”

***FUTURE TENSE

Person C shifted the argument to be about something other than when life begins or whether women’s bodies are appropriate to legislate. Person C is finding a platform where BOTH sides can look at how to work toward a shared vision. Maybe both sides can agree to advocate for better sex education, more access to contraceptives, better support systems for young and poor and scared pregnant girls, extensions to Head Start programs, stricter laws on men who abandon their families, or longer and harsher sentences for rapists who attack women behind dumpsters and serve only a few months’ sentence because they’re good swimmers who are blond white boys.

So, there’s my advice. When you go to visit Grandma Helga this summer and you just know she’s going to be all “destroying property and rioting is for hoodlums and thugs,” you can retort with something like, “well, Grandma, sure. Neither of us wants people to lose their livelihoods, so what should be done to make sure what triggered these riots, Black men too often dying in police custody, doesn’t keep happening? If we can think of solutions to end police brutality, we’d also stop those riots and demonstrations.”

I’m honored you’ve attended my Masterclass. 😄

#thanksforcimingtomytedtalk

Be A Better Arguer: Lesson #3

“I read somewhere…”

“Studies show…”

“I’ve heard from reputable sources…”

“They say that…”

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

Ahhh… the “Appeal to Anonymous Authority.”

This is a logical fallacy (definition: a flaw in the structure or line of reasoning in an argument that renders it invalid). It’s probably the one I see most commonly on social media…where all the “experts” (wink*wink) are.

People on the internet always have opinions, don’t they? But, see, most people are using that word wrong. An opinion, in its truest sense, is an idea based on an appraisal of available circumstances or data. I mean, anyone can have an opinion in the sense that they can have likes, dislikes, faith, beliefs, or interests. But if you want to be in an ARGUMENT, an “opinion” is different and you just gotta have some sources, proof, evidence…ya know…stuff that isn’t just randomness from your own head.

Here’s what to do when faced with someone whose argument is invalid because of the use of the “Appeal to Anonymous Authority” fallacy:

Photo by Lukas on Pexels.com

1. You fight facts with facts. You fight “opinions” with…facts.

To have a quality, reasonable, logical argument, you need to have evidence or data to support your claim(s). Data/evidence can exist in several forms including, but not limited to:

—numbers,charts, graphs, and figures from recognized experts in the field most relevant to the issue at hand

—conclusions, studies, and opinions (in the true sense of the word) from experts in the field (even better is when you can find the same conclusions drawn by multiple experts).

—quotes from reputable news organizations and written by reputable writers (click on the name of a journalist on any article – you’ll be taken to their credentials. If there’s no writer listed, run away. If there are no credentials listed, run away.)

—scientific studies that are peer-reviewed

2. Comment reasonably and intelligently on your data.

Don’t merely provide a list of facts. Explain simply and clearly HOW those facts support your claim. This is actually tougher than it sounds. I consider myself lucky if I can get 75% of my students (who avidly study and practice this) to write good commentary. But, really, if you don’t connect the dots, clarifying what you suggest the data you’ve presented shows about the claim you’ve made, you’re just listing facts. Lists don’t persuade. They bore.

3. Evaluate the potential holes in or objections to your argument. How would a good arguer respond to my words?

If you can think objectively about defense, you can build a stronger offense. This, in turn, can shorten the duration of the argument as a whole and can make it clear that you just may be the only one who came truly ready to play. However, upon presenting a well-researched, supported point of view that’s pretty failsafe, you might be met with an attack on your intelligence, looks, age, etc. That’s another logical fallacy: the ad hominem attack that I covered in an earlier post. Sometimes people just feel the need to have the last word and, “bite me, donkey face” can feel better to them than letting your claims rest without retort.

So, come to an argument armed with facts, science, expert opinions, news sources, and support. And, most importantly, stay calm, stay on-topic, and keep it classy.

You’ve become so much smarter already from my Masterclass, haven’t you? 🤪

#thanksforcomingtomytedtalk

Next time: “No, Becky, ‘The Onion’ is not a Reputable News Source,” or, “How to Bring Good Data to the Argument”

Photo by Polina Zimmerman on Pexels.com

I Taught During a Pandemic and Then I Ranted About Shit on the Internet

If you’re joining our program already in progress, let me catch you up…

“Off Duty Mom” refers to being a mom who is tired all the time and thus needing to go “off duty” every now and again. It also makes a reference to what I do when I am “on duty” in the sense that I am getting paid to put up with children. I’m a teacher. I taught during the pandemic. I didn’t love it.

When the pandemic forced us out of schools in 2020, I started blowin’ people’s minds on the interwebs via my personal Facebook account. I started handing out free lessons about how to better argue with people since I wasn’t able to teach that content in school, ‘cuz, like, there kinda wasn’t really school at the time.

This is the second lesson in a series I published starting in May of 2020. It is republished here for your viewing and learning pleasure…

Enjoy.

Photo by Adi Goldstein on Unsplash

Lesson #2

The ad hominem attack

The phrase “ad hominem” translates to “to the man.” When someone attacks you personally, rather than addressing your position, that’s an ad hominem attack. Weak arguers use this logical fallacy mostly because they:

#1 hope to hurt or anger you, or

#2 can’t sufficiently argue against your points.

If you’ve been called “snowflake,” “boomer,” “sheep/sheeple,” etc., your opponent has shown his cards: he’s got nothin’.

These attacks can get even more personal depending on age, race, sexuality, gender, religion, and so on.

Yesterday, in response to a dumb joke I made on a friend’s Facebook page, I was called “sweetheart.” Sometimes terms like these (honey, sweetie, etc) are flung at women perhaps- and I don’t really know for sure- because if we can infantilize a woman, she’ll be put “back in her place.” The issues will be left to the big boys. Silly girls thinking they can say words. Haha.

Photo by dole777 on Unsplash

Another example might be tweeting about a group of people calling them “THUGS.” This word is racially-charged. Culturally, this term has come to mean “Black men who…cause trouble…mostly by wearing hoodies and…looking SUSPICIOUS.” Other racially-charged words (aside from the obvious) might include “homie,” “brother,” and even “boy” which again, historically was/is used to keep someone “in his place.” A “boy” is not a MAN, after all, and “man,” in a weak debate, is the highest life form (according to those who resort to these kinds of tactics).

Slurs, name-calling, and other personal attacks are attempts to suggest that you are weaker, less-than, or too stupid, too uneducated, too uninformed, or too ignorant to be worthy of speaking to the person slinging the insults.

A word doesn’t have to be a slur to be a demeaning ad hominem attack, either. Consider name-calling and “jokes” meant to poke “fun” at stereotypes: Asian drivers, Rural “hillbillies,” etc., as examples. Unless you’re arguing about whether or not Asian people are good drivers (and don’t argue that, come on), bringing a cultural stereotype into the mix is irrelevant and useless.

Look — this guy is smiling. I’m going to call him “Sam.” Sam looks like he’s enjoying being on the internet. Sam is probably being very nice to people online. You should be like Sam.
Photo by Good Faces on Unsplash

What to do about it?

1. Do NOT play their game. If you’ve been attacked personally, rather than your opponent pointing out flaws in your argument, don’t respond in-kind. He’s dragged you down to his level and then you’re fighting instead of arguing if you do. Don’t just make an insult-fest.

2. Know that if someone has gone this direction, they’re either out of things to say that are valid or are more concerned with hurting your feeling than with having a dialogue. It may be best to walk away. This might prompt more name-calling, but remember how Marty McFly’s responses to being called “chicken” didn’t turn out well. Learn from Marty’s mistakes.

3. Realize that bullying and being a general meatball aren’t, you know, GOOD things. So, resist the urge to escalate the situation. Do not threaten to go to the guy’s house and punch him in the throat. This makes you MORE wrong now. Once you become the bad guy, that’s pretty hard to reverse. And, now you’ve lost credibility. Either go back to your point, calmly, or end the interaction.

In the end, pity the man* who has nothing to offer to the world or to your discussion other than insults. And rest comfortably in the knowledge that you’re better than that.

Thanks for your attention to my Masterclass. 😋

#thanksforcomingtomytedtalk

Next topic: when your opponent has no sources, just “opinions”…

*”man” used generically in reference to mankind. Don’t come at me with your “you’re a reverse sexist” bulldoodoo.

Reflections From a Pandemic Teacher: Let’s Learn How To Argue

Photo by John Cameron on Unsplash

Lesson #1: The Red Herring

In any debate of ideas, it’s necessary to stay on-topic, otherwise you’ll never get to any understanding whatsoever. A tactic sometimes used by individuals in an argument is to shift the subject matter in an attempt to make the argument easier on them. The Red Herring logical fallacy happens when one debater mentions an idea, then the opponent pivots in an attempt to make that argument about something else.

It’s flawed logic (well, really it isn’t logic at all) and it’s a sign of a weak position.

For example, leading up to the 2016 election, Donald Trump, in a televised debate with Hillary Clinton, was asked about the statements he’d made that were caught on tape. When moderator, Anderson Cooper, asked if Mr. Trump understood that his comments about grabbing women’s genitals were comments about sexual assault, Mr. Trump first said that it was “locker room talk,” but then said that he was going to defeat ISIS. “Defeating ISIS” was off-topic. It’s a pivot away from one idea to an idea the speaker would rather discuss.

When this happens, if you’d like to respond, you need to insist that the conversation pivot back to the issue at hand. Do NOT begin discussing ISIS in this case.

OMG. I searched the word “idiot” on Unsplash for an image to use in this article, and this came up. I am NOT making this up.
Photo by Vince Fleming on Unsplash

Here are a few things you could try:

1. Play the “I’m just innocently trying to learn” game. —- “I’m confused, but interested in your thoughts. So, does this all mean you do or you do not understand that you were bragging about sexual assault?”

2. Find common ground and let your opponent win just a little—- “I agree that ISIS is a very big concern, but I would still like to know if you understand that your comments were about sexual assault.”

3. Play dumb (this one works particularly well if you’re already being spoken to as though you are actually an idiot)—- “Hmm… I don’t understand. When asked about sexual assault, how does defeating ISIS figure in to that? I’m so silly. I don’t get it. Haha.”

4. This is dangerous territory and I don’t necessarily recommend it because it may lead to a fight rather than and argument, but call the speaker out—- “Excuse me, sir, but I think we’ve gotten off-topic here. Let’s get back to the question of whether you understood your words to be about sexual assault or not.” *note the use of “we” since there are two people in the debate. Sure YOU didn’t go off-topic, but “we” is gentler when we’re trying to have a rational and civil discussion.

This is my Masterclass (my version of it, anyway, but mine’s FREE, y’all!). 🤣

This “Masterclass” I built was the product of my weariness from missing my “on duty” job as an English teacher in the spring of 2020 as the pandemic ripped our profession from us. Check back soon for more!

#thanksforcomingtomytedtalk

Next up: when someone makes an argument personal…

Reflections From a Pandemic Teacher

In March of 2020, you may or may not have heard, a global pandemic made its way to the US and pretty much upended, well, everything.

Within a few months, my life as a teacher was completely unrecognizable from anything it had been in the years prior. In this time, I missed the world as it had been. I think a whole lot of us felt the same way.

Photo by Seema Miah on Unsplash

When I am “off duty” as a mom, I’ve mentioned that my “on duty” work is as an English teacher. When I found myself missing that work in May of 2020, I wrote some thoughts on social media. I’ll share them with you in the coming days.

What follows is the first in a series of posts I did then where I attempted to soothe my teacher pain by droppin’ knowledge to my friends. It occurred to me, though, that this information might be useful and welcome for other folks, too, so…here you go…

FROM May 29, 2020:

I’m a teacher. I teach a few different courses, two of which are Debate and a course in argumentation and rhetoric. We’re doing this distance-learning thing and I miss being with my students. So, I thought I’d offer you all some lessons to help me feel as though I’m doing more good in the world than I’ve been able to in these trying times.

On social media, you might see someone write about a crazy idea and then claim something like, “well, that’s just my opinion,” or, “this is a free country and I can say what I want.”

I teach my students that you are NOT entitled to your own opinion. Nobody cares what you think. Like, at all. Maybe, if you were an expert in the field about which you speak, we’d love to hear from you. But even then, you have a burden to bear. Your responsibility in any dialogue is not to have an unwarranted opinion, but to have CONCLUSIONS you’ve drawn after careful consideration of sources, relevant experiences, study, and fact-checking. So, welcome to my MASTERCLASS. 😋

I’ll be showing you, in some upcoming posts, how to argue with others effectively.

Lesson #1 “argument” and “fight” are not synonyms. You fight to win. You argue to come to an understanding. Next lesson: what to do when someone isn’t responding to your views with relevant counterpoints. Stay tuned.

#thankyouforcomingtomytedtalk

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: