Against the culture of winning

Four rules for engaging in charitable discourse

A note on terms

Before anything else, I need to clarify how I am using some central terms in this article: conversation and perspective. If you take issue with these definitions, that’s quite all right, but please do focus on those before addressing issues you may find with the article itself.

Conversation. As a sociological and linguistic phenomenon, conversation is a cooperative exchange of meaning between persons.

Perspective: Perspective is the socially and historically shaped lens through which a person interprets reality, formed by their lived experiences, language, culture, and position within systems.

---

Our culture of disagreement

I’ve been increasingly disheartened and confused by how common bad-faith arguments have become lately. It’s really strange to find grown adults carelessly throwing aside the rhetorical do’s and don’ts that I would teach my 7th-grade students. The reckless prioritization of dominating and “winning” the conversation at all costs shows that one really isn’t interested in having a conversation at all.

It isn’t entirely surprising, though, when you stop to think about our cultural moment. While I’ve certainly seen this kind of thing in conversations held in person, it is overwhelmingly online. And in the online world, dopamine rules. If you want to get picked up by the algorithm, you'd better be either 1) casually saying something pretty shocking or 2) saying something normal in a pretty shocking way. If you want your circle of influence to grow and your camp to come out victorious on the other side, you have to fight fire with fire. Two-sentence Twitter “hot takes” and 3-hour livestreams filled with anger-infused incoherent nonsense alike have an immense power to make the audience feel validated in their beliefs.

It’s not new for media platforms to feature uncharitable wastes of time that get people fired up. It just used to be confined to particular radio shows, websites, or fringe YouTube channels. This kind of profane engagement used to be obscure because folks knew they could make headlines and be publicly ridiculed for saying something outrageous. Today, it’s just part of everyday life. We’ve become so desensitized to filth that somehow, it no longer feels like big news when some of the internet’s most pervasive influencers all chant “Heil Hitler” in a public place. Now, with the rapid influx of shock statements and low-blows, this kind of discourse is so ubiquitous that it’s hard to imagine any media platform without it. In the late-stage internet-dominated world, being a jerk isn’t just reserved for the profitable and ethically ambiguous few; it’s apparently the only way for your ideas to survive. We’ve been catechized to let the ends justify the means.

Unfortunately, this isn’t limited to the political sphere. The theological world is rife with some of the worst kinds of discussion you could possibly imagine. While the average pastor or lay person may not be regularly spouting this kind of edgy, clickbait-style vitriol (though this is most assuredly happening), what flows downstream from it is incredibly concerning. I know you’ve seen it. It’s a way of disagreeing that is the death of true discussion, oriented more around disagreeing for its own sake. As a result, true conversation is murdered in the arduous desire for subjugation of the “opponent.” Might this be what Paul referred to when he said to avoid “corrupting talk?”

In an attempt to re-orient us around dignified conversation, I’d like to outline a few practical guidelines for engaging in healthy, fruitful disagreements both online and offline. Though I was tempted to frame these as “never” rules, this article lays out four “always” rules for healthy disagreeing.

Before I get there, though, allow me to make one more disclaimer.

It’s worth mentioning that while I am deeply dedicated to preserving the art of conversation defined in this way, there are things that I have no interest in having a conversation about. There are some ideas that, in my mind, deserve repudiation without debate, and thus will never receive any serious engagement from me. If you’ve read this article of mine, you’re well aware of this. Beyond the purposes of mere rhetorical exercise, there is never a context in which I will entertain rational discussion about extreme acts of exploitation or ideas that promote it.

For example, if one wanted to discuss the ethical permissibility of genocide, systematic exploitation of the vulnerable, or ideologies that celebrate the subjugation of other human beings, I would exit the room before this individual finished their sentence. I am not nearly confident enough in my skills of persuasion to assume that I can change the minds of those who adopt extremist ideologies, because their true desire for these views extends far beyond the intellectual. It seems to me to be the case that nobody chooses extreme ideology without deep emotional and spiritual wounds (Raskolnikov and his Napoleonic theory comes to mind), and until one can realize the need for healing in this area, no true conversation can be had. There is a time for civility, but ideas such as these do not merit civil conversation. To seriously engage in these kinds of discussions unwittingly validates the intellectual viability of dehumanization, and this must be avoided at all costs.

That being said, here are the four conversational guidelines that I think may help us engage in more fruitful disagreement!

---

Always recognize the limits of your perspective

The way we approach disagreement is crucial. If you walk into a conversation with even an unspoken hubris or attitude of condescension, you’ve already missed the point and can count on the discussion being utterly worthless. We absolutely must avoid the temptation to make ideological proselytization the purpose of conversation. As I noted above, conversation is a mutual exchange of meaning. As such, even disagreement is a chance for each party to learn more about the other and their respective worldviews. It is not a stage for a rhetorical actor to impose submission upon his conversation partner. There is nothing to “win” here. Only desperation and insecurity seek to “win” disagreements.

To recognize conversation as a mutual exchange of meaning is to equip yourself with a profound sense of your own limited perspective, and thus capacity for error. We often approach ideas as if they’re only a matter of being thoroughly well-read on a given topic, and if two people are truly educated on said topic, then they’ll arrive at similar conclusions. This is not necessarily true. The most highly qualified doctors, historians, theologians, etc., differ greatly on a plethora of issues respective to their fields. As such, disagreements should not be entered with the assumption that your conclusion is the educated one and the opposition is simply ignorant. While it’s certainly true that most debated issues have more ignorant and less ignorant approaches, assuming this posture fails to grapple with the shaping power of one’s perspective.

In short, each of us carries a huge amount of baggage into the room in which we converse. As a result of this, all of us have to enter into any conversation with intense humility, recognizing that not only does our lack of education or experience with a topic limit our understanding, but the very way we see reality itself. Some things are baked into our nature that incline us to process particular things in a particular way. While we may (and should) try to be aware of and counterbalance those things, we must understand that our perspective is inherently a part of who we are. Contrary to the cold rationalism of the Enlightenment, nobody is really a neutral observer. Nobody is capable of evaluating ideas on a purely objective level.

So the first step of disagreeing well is not only recognizing that you could be wrong (this is obvious), but that your perspective imposes peculiar difficulties on seeing things in a different way. As such, we ought to adopt an overwhelming amount of humility before opening our mouths (or laptops).

Always represent the other person’s view fairly

These next two rules really ought to be seen as two halves of the same whole, because it’s almost impossible to do one and not the other.

Once you’ve mentally oriented yourself towards humility, recognizing your own capacity for error and the limits of your perspective, you’re ready to move on to the disagreement itself. The critique begins. You’ll likely begin by diagnosing what you perceive as problematic elements of your partner’s view, which is good and right, assuming you do have at least some idea of what you’re talking about.

Which brings me to the next issue. A great deal of disagreements would be solved simply by understanding what the opposition actually believes. Approaching the other person’s view of a topic on their own terms. This is why it’s so important to follow the first rule. Entering the conversation with humility ensures you will be more interested in narrowing down to the actual point of disagreement itself rather than a hypothetical bogeyman.

Anyways, if I were to frame this rule in the negative, it would be, “Never strawman!” To define terms once again, a strawman argument is essentially (intentionally or not) misrepresenting the essence of the opposition’s argument to make it easier to tear down. As soon as I see anybody from any ideological persuasion use a strawman to undercut another idea, I immediately tune out. I don’t care if you share my conclusions; I’m no longer interested in what you have to say. Because it’s just not a real argument. Ironically, making your opponent’s position into straw simultaneously turns yours into the same.

A great example of a strawman in the theological world would be saying that a group that differs with you “just doesn’t believe the Bible!” This could be regarding baptism, women’s ordination, the end times, whatever. It may seem that the opposition doesn’t believe the Bible, but this is only because you also believe that doctrine is a very clear-cut issue. “This is just what the Bible says, and they don’t believe that!” Obviously, it isn’t that simple, or there wouldn’t be widespread disagreements on how to interpret the particular issue. If we embrace the definition of “perspective” that I gave above, this should also be fairly obvious, considering we all respond to language differently and the Bible is… a giant collection of language.

In the political sphere, you might hear something like “Democrats want to get rid of all borders!” or “Pro-lifers just want to control women.” To do even a shred of research would show that neither of these statements is actually true in any meaningful sense. No, most elected Democrats (and most everyday Democrats, in my experience) have no statement expressing a desire to get rid of any legal immigration process; that’s an absurd exaggeration. No, most average pro-lifers do not have any actual position that expresses a desire to dominate and subjugate all women. We may imply either of these things as a result of our reaction to their idea, but it isn’t legitimately a part of their stated position.

The strawman (along with any other logical fallacy) guarantees that the conversing parties will only talk past each other, and no intellectual efforts will be spent on rational critique of the idea itself. It’s much easier to attack a fake idea than the complexities of the real one.

To combat this? Always represent your opponents’ ideas in language they would agree accurately represents their position. Argue on their terms. Yes, I know, that can be incredibly difficult, especially when you’re passionate about the subject, but it is far more fruitful if you desire real conversation. I remember writing a paper in college that my professor tore to shreds because, paragraph after paragraph, I consistently misrepresented the ideas I was criticizing to the point where no proponent of said idea would have recognized it. I didn’t truly understand how to write good criticism until I failed that paper, and I‘m very grateful for that low grade.

If you want to score cheap “points” and dunk on your opponent using a bad-faith argument that benefits nobody and only helps solidify you in the belief you already hold, then a strawman is a great idea. But if you want to genuinely engage in conversation and hold a healthy disagreement, you should avoid a strawman like the plague. After all, if your view is as accurate as you’re claiming, you should be more than capable of critiquing your opponent’s actual ideas and not a fake version of them.

Always be specific

Like strawman arguments, sweeping generalizations are inaccurate rhetorical devices that help absolutely nobody. At best, they muddy the waters of conversation, and at worst, they can lead to some of the most diabolical atrocities that you can imagine (i.e., “The Jews” in Nazi Party propaganda). Sweeping generalizations and broad, vague, undefined statements treat people as monoliths who fit into neat boxes of ideological conformity. While groupthink is certainly real, this tactic won’t get you anywhere genuinely helpful in a one-on-one conversation with another human being.

Again, if we really believe in our position and have researched it thoroughly, it ought not to be too difficult to point to specific instances, figures, or events to help make our point. For example, instead of saying “Conservatives think x,” you could point to an influential conservative, a representative of wider conservative thought, and then critique the idea as presented by that specific figure. Obviously, this applies to every camp and kind of thought. Instead of criticizing “liberals” or “Catholics” or “Presbyterians,” point to specific figures that represent those movements, and then represent their ideas accurately before offering a humble critique. See how these two principles work in tandem? Let’s continue to flesh out the example from earlier.

Instead of saying that “democrats want no borders,” you could say, “In a press briefing, Democratic Senators X and Y have expressed Z philosophy about immigration, and here’s why that’s concerning to me.” It takes more effort, but it will most certainly get you farther than carelessly generalizing millions of people into one very narrow box defined by your own perspective. Instead of saying “Pro-lifers want to control women,” you could say, “Pro-life leader X said Y about women and bodily autonomy at a rally last month, and here’s why that concerns me.”

This isn’t to say that generalizations are always inaccurate. It would be quite uncontroversial to make claims like “Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God,” or “The Reformers thought the Church had adopted unnecessary accretions in doctrine.” Note, however, that these are incredibly basic, almost common-sense statements. There’s little to debate there. It’s more of a historical fact than anything interpretive. The records of these matters are well-known and widely agreed-upon. But that’s the key difference. They’re widely agreed-upon, not hotly contested. So at the very least, in most situations, sweeping generalizations with no specific evidence behind them are steps into dangerous territory.

To be fair (again, due to the power of perspective), sometimes it’s hard to differentiate between what you perceive to be factual and uncontroversial vs. what actually is. The answer? Always be specific. If you’re going to make any kind of substantial claim that falls outside of common ground, then narrow it down to exactly what you’re talking about. Give a real example. Cite a real source. Then build your argument from that specific place.

Always remember the person behind the position

Despite this being the last of the four guidelines, it is arguably the most important. Even if you entered into a disagreement without a shred of humility and made arguments littered with strawmen and generalizations, you can still recognize the humanity of the person you’re disagreeing with. You can still acknowledge them as an individual who is valuable and worthy of being treated with dignity. Even if you trash their ideas as sloppily and arrogantly as possible, it is still possible to treat the person with decency. You can still recognize that, just like you, they are broken, limited, and subject to their own biases and blind spots. They, like you, are also trying to find a way to make meaning and sense out of all the wildness, chaos, pain, and beauty of life.

On the flip side, you can avoid all logical fallacies, making the cleanest, most well-informed, civil argument, and still ultimately forget the humanity of your conversation partner. We make arguments that are incredibly well-constructed and yet horribly dehumanizing. Obviously, then, your arguments and ideas are worthless. We must remember that preserving and protecting any particular ideology is never worth more than your neighbor. Defending your worldview is never worth undermining another person’s inherent dignity.

As we enter into disagreements, then, we must hold the person themselves at the forefront of our minds, despite focusing entirely on the critique of the idea itself in the disagreement itself. There is a tension to hold here. In criticism, focus only on the ideas. But in what you value, focus overwhelmingly on the person. Ideas serve people. People ought not be made servants of ideas. If we are truly and confidently rooted in our beliefs, we can be deeply dedicated to our ideas and worldview without resorting to dehumanization.

Why this matters

While these four guidelines can seem obvious, and many people are simply uncaring, I think there are a lot of folks out there who just genuinely never learned good conversation skills. If someone has been catechized into a world that is centered around securing power (perhaps more charitably understood as “security”) by whatever means necessary, these rules will seem neither apparent nor worthwhile. There is a bigger issue at stake here than poor approaches to disagreement. It is a culture of self-centered grasping for control. Many of us across the political and theological aisle must seriously confront these temptations.

The idea of certain kinds of speech being equivalent to violence is more than a bit silly. But it does underscore a legitimate truth. Rhetoric is inseparably connected to action. Dehumanizing rhetoric always paves the way for dehumanizing action. From the heart, the mouth speaks. This isn’t some kind of slippery slope fallacy claiming that if somebody says something mean online, then their next move will be to go out and commit murder. Rather, I mean to say that if a society becomes largely complacent in this area, tolerating unkind and careless speech, a culture of cruelty and disregard for one’s neighbor will naturally spring forth from those seeds.

Describing the Nazi Party’s methods of radicalizing the German people, Milton Sanford Mayer describes the process that eventually led to the gas chambers as hundreds of almost imperceptible attacks on civility that slowly desensitize you to not be shocked by the next one. You’re trained to accept things that five years previously you never would have. It’s in this context that extremism and cruelty are justified and even baptized. And it starts with the kind of rhetoric we allow to exist on our streets, in our churches, from the mouths of our leaders, and yes, in our online feeds.