Arguing the Opposite Point of View

Originally posted by kmax87
I think it is possible to argue the opposite of what you actually believe, but it requires maturity, and a measure of experience and intelligence.

Then again, there is the (possibly apocryphal) story about Confederate General Braxton Bragg:

"...as a company commander at a frontier post where he also served as quartermaster. He submitted a requisition for supplies for his company, then as quartermaster declined to fill it. As company commander, he resubmitted the requisition, giving additional reasons for his requirements, but as the quartermaster he denied the request again. Realizing that he was at a personal impasse, he referred the matter to the post commandant, who exclaimed "My God, Mr. Bragg, you have quarreled with every officer in the army, and now you are quarreling with yourself!""

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Even given these qualities, you are merely arguing for the sake of arguing, whetting your rhetorical Bowie knife on a convenient grindstone. You can't approach critical objectivity unless you actually believe what you don't believe. A form of hypnosis may be required, plus some recording equipment.

Have you ever tried to play chess or draughts with yourself. It sounds a bit like what you proposed with the recording of pro and contra arguments.

It wouldn't work. Its a bit like switching between sides of a chess game. If you payed each side of the board to the best of your knowledge on each round of moves, you would rapidly converge to games that only reflected your knowledge (or lack of) the subtleties of chess.

What you need is to dissociate yourself from your belief and merge yourself with not just what you construe to be the other side of the argument, you actually have to engage with the other side as a believer in that ideology would. Its a bit like you don't know the struggle of another individual, until you walk a mile in their shoes.

If you were to debate a position opposite to where you usually lie on a topic, then talking to people already predisposed to that way of thinking will help finesse your ability to argue for the opposite view on that topic.

The other side of the argument is not simply everything you don't believe in on your side. Thats trying to play chess with yourself. The other side of the debate usually encompasses certain core aspects of what you believe in on your side of the debate. Its usually just a matter of degree of difference in emphasis on some key points that leads to the chasm between positions.

The problem is that neither side is simply a polar opposite construction of the other, and thats where experience and intelligence are required to be able to argue successfully against a position you would normally hold in a debate.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Even given these qualities, you are merely arguing for the sake of arguing, whetting your rhetorical Bowie knife on a convenient grindstone. You can't approach critical objectivity unless you actually believe what you don't believe. A form of hypnosis may be required, plus some recording equipment.

Experiment: Debate Yourself

1. Opening remarks ( ...[text shortened]... 2. Hypnosis, followed by opening remarks (contra).
3. Play step 2 recording, respond.
4. etc

I do this all the time, less formally. Autoargumentation is a very good way to decide what to believe in the first place.

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
I do this all the time, less formally. Autoargumentation is a very good way to decide what to believe in the first place.

Hey rCL,

I'm wondering what an "autoargument" looks like in it's raw form. Is that like when one supposes it a good thing to get caught with a naked "causal girl friend" in his bed by his steady "girl friend" who has become too pushy? Or is it more like trying to decide whether to take out the trash before or after the next beer?

LOL

Seriously, I too often go down in flames when I argue with old ID. But old EGO usually wins. Selfish bugger that he is. I once got so wrapped up in a "self-castagatory, flaming argumentive indictment" of self that I forgot who I was. But in the end it didn't matter because I had so lost it, neither me, myself or I felt bad.