Debating with Non-Leftists: How?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I friend of mine and I regularly engage in debates about politics. Recently, I have argued against voting, and this has led him to take a stronger stand against anarchism, which he claims won't work. He says capitalism is corrupt, but he believes people can achieve change through government. He thinks government is a neccessary evil and believes in voting. For instance, he supports voting for the Liberal Party of Canada. Additionally, he suggests that they are the best party, and believes leftists, such as myself, are overconfident. He thinks all philosophies have value and that revolutionaries are often arrogant because they belittle other ideologies - such as fascism. In short, he thinks all ideologies have weight, but the best ideology, ironically, is liberalism because it allows ideologies to be equal, though he denies being liberal (and the statement that liberalism is the best ideology is me interpreting his beliefs - he dislikes categorizing people based on ideology and does not do so for himself). I can't explain the contradiction in liberal philosophy, either, even though I feel accepting every other philosophy must include accepting those who disagree with acceptance.

Any suggestions?

[Forward Union]

Hmm, maybe this will help

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25500

I can also reccomend hanging around in OI, and reading through some debates there.

[Jimmie Higgins]

My suggestion is stop argueing with people who sit around in coffee shops and ponder ideas and the world as if they were a Pixie floating above the world and commenting on what fools we mortals be.

I mean, seriously, fascism is just as valid as other ideas...? Come down and join the real world!

Bring him down to earth and out of the vaccume of pure ideas. There are homeless people probably in your town and you live in one of the richest societies in the world.

The best way to debate someone like that is to ask them questions and draw them out and make them follow their own logic and then show how it dosn't fit, whereas a class-view of the world is more consitant and makes more sense. If capitalism is corrupt, why? Is it possible to have pure capitalism or is it an inherent flaw in capitalism?

[loveme4whoiam]

I have exactly the same problem with a close friend who has turned out to be surprisingly close-minded and conservative. He accepts that things are wrong, but believes in reform and the "fact" that "Communism can't work because people are assholes". These debates have actually gotten quite heated because I find it enormously frustrating when someone of obvious intellect can't see past the bullshit and smokescreen.

Now I have started to resort to very basic arguments - "There are homeless people; Why?" - in an attempt to turn his own "logic" against him, and so far its been pretty successful in making him stop and go "hmm." Just a suggestion :)

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think often people who recognize the obvious problems in society, feel overwhelmed by these problems and so they resort to cynacism. It is easier to believe that all people are assholes or it's natural for people to be selfish because then it absolves you from being able to do anything about the situation.

I mean black people in the US obviously recognized that stuff was messed up long before there was a mass civil rights movement. What changed in the 50s was that because of things like the bus boycott and the sit-in, people began seeing that there was something that could be done. This is why when there are movements in the streets, suddenly all that "smokescreen" is blown away and a movement can explode seemingly overnight. The Globalization movement and the recent protests in the US about immigration are also examples of this dynamic.

[bezdomni]

It depends.

If they don't know anything about leftism, then don't let them talk too much. If they're interested in learning more, talk with them and give them a book or a link to a website. If they don't want to learn then you are mostly wasting your time. But you can use the experience to make them look stupid in front of others -thereby discrediting them.

If the person does know things about leftism, then just stand your ground. Knowing your stuff definitely helps :P

The main thing is spreading the idea and getting past the lies. I consider it a success when I hear a person in their history or economics class say "hey! That isn't what communism is all about!".

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 30 2006, 12:26 AM
I friend of mine and I regularly engage in debates about politics. Recently, I have argued against voting, and this has led him to take a stronger stand against anarchism, which he claims won't work. He says capitalism is corrupt, but he believes people can achieve change through government. He thinks government is a neccessary evil and believes in voting. For instance, he supports voting for the Liberal Party of Canada. Additionally, he suggests that they are the best party, and believes leftists, such as myself, are overconfident. He thinks all philosophies have value and that revolutionaries are often arrogant because they belittle other ideologies - such as fascism. In short, he thinks all ideologies have weight, but the best ideology, ironically, is liberalism because it allows ideologies to be equal, though he denies being liberal (and the statement that liberalism is the best ideology is me interpreting his beliefs - he dislikes categorizing people based on ideology and does not do so for himself). I can't explain the contradiction in liberal philosophy, either, even though I feel accepting every other philosophy must include accepting those who disagree with acceptance.

Any suggestions?
You think that's hard? I debated politics every week for a year with an out-and-out, Bush-supporting, capitalist, to-the-right-of-Conservative reactionary arsehole. I never once convinced him of anything, but several neutral bystanders who listened to our debates ended up being on my side :D .

[Idola Mentis]

Ideally, always consider their positions from both your frame of reference and *theirs*. Sometimes, you aren't getting trough because you are not agreeing on some basic assumptions. Identify those assumptions and challenge them.

For example, your friend seems to follow a principle of absolute tolerance, and is willing to compromise on the practice of his other principles to accomodate this tolerance. If you disagree with this, why? Explain it to him.

[Global_Justice]

the problem with most people is they are stubborn. really, the only way to improve debating is to get practice, you will get to see what people respnd to, and what people don't respond to. i used to debate politics on another forum, and i used to get so angry and ended up insulting and swearing etc. then i learnt that is about as useful as a fart in a spacesuit and only serves to make him more stuborn and me look like a wanker.

if someone is set in their ways, they will seldom change their mind, even if your argument in water-tight, they will just get more stubborn and never concede. which is when you have to compromise. the point in politics, and i think some of you might disagree this being a far-left, revolutionary site, is not necassarily to change other peoples opinions, but to get them to recognise yours, accept yours, find common ground, and compromise. but when it comes to opposing idealogies, someone will only accept your opinion if you do the same.

[Djehuti]

*delete*