Mature discussions or debates can and do occasionally devolve into a name-calling slug fest. Both parties trying their best to one-up their opponent. At this point, nobody wins.
You have to remain calm in a sincere debate where you’re trying to reason with someone or come to some middle ground. Immediately starting with the name calling and yelling and huffing and hawing isn’t productive. Interrupting or laughing or being sarcastic or condescending isn’t helpful either. Don’t get me started with eye rolls. If you want to learn something or be able to teach something, you have to assume your opponent also has a desire to do the same. If you start with assuming your opponent is hostile, you already begin in a defensive posture and will respond accordingly. So stay calm and assume the best. If you’re asked a question, instead of searching for a hidden meaning, treat the question like it’s a sincere attempt gain information. Answer it.
Which leads to the next issue, there has to be honesty. You have to be honest in your position and you have to honestly understand your opponents position. If you mischaracterize or distort your opponents opinion, and then argue with that, you’re arguing with strawmen. You’re being dishonest in the debate and it does nobody any good.
Recently I responded to a social media post where someone made a mischaracterization about the recent riots in Washington DC. This person claimed that “…storming the Capitol building because your candidate lost…” was illegitimate. I agree with that assessment. If you’re rioting because your candidate or team or whatever lost, you’re out of your mind. Luckily I think this person just made a simple mistake in articulating the reason, but it works well enough to make my point.
The riots didn’t occur because a particular political candidate lost. If the people rioting believed that the election was fair, there would not have been a riot. The problem is they believed the election was stolen and that the government itself was complicit in the fraud. Whether the election was stolen or not is another debate, but it’s a debate they believe they weren’t given. So, they decided to storm the Capitol and disrupt the government for a few hours.
Whether you believe that to be a legitimate reason to storm the Capitol is also debatable, but mischaracterizing the reason is certainly dishonest, although in this case it was accidental dishonestly.
If you debate me, I will assume you have the best intentions and I’d like you to assume the same about me. If I mischaracterize your position, it’s an honest mistake. If you’re a big jerk, and I start calling you names while mischaracterizing your position, well, then I’m just angry.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and you give that to me. If we start there, then we can make progress.
Good faith isn't just an attitude; it's a series of actions. It’s the commitment to a shared process, even when the topic is difficult. Here are the core traits to look for and to cultivate in yourself.
1. Intellectual Humility
This is the foundation of all productive conversations. It’s the understanding that your own perspective is incomplete and that you might be wrong. A person with intellectual humility isn't afraid to be proven wrong; they welcome it as an opportunity to learn.
What it sounds like:
"Based on my understanding... but I could be missing something."
"That's a good point. I hadn't considered it from that angle."
"Help me understand what led you to that conclusion."
Why it matters: It turns a confrontation into a collaboration. Instead of two certainties clashing, it becomes a mutual exploration of a topic.
2. The Principle of Charity
This is the commitment to interpreting the other person's argument in its strongest, most persuasive form. Instead of looking for flaws and attacking the ...
The worn leather of the armchair creaked a familiar protest as Michael settled in. Across from him, on the edge of the old sofa, sat David, a man whose face was as familiar as his own reflection, etched with thirty years of shared laughter, quiet commiserations, and unspoken understandings. But tonight, there was a tension in the air, a subtle crack in the foundation of their long-standing ease.
"Thanks for coming over, Dave," Michael began, his voice softer than usual. "There's… something we need to talk about. It feels like there's been a growing misunderstanding, and it's been weighing on me."
David nodded slowly, his gaze steady. "I'm listening, Mike."
Michael took a breath. "I've heard things, felt a distance. And it seems like you, and maybe others, have a picture of me that isn't true. Like I'm… someone I'm not. And I need to set the record straight."
He leaned forward, choosing his words carefully. "I want trans people to have the same freedom and rights as any non-trans person. I want ...
10 rules for a productive discussion about controversial topics.
1. The Prime Directive: Argue in Good Faith This is the foundational rule. Both parties must enter the conversation with the genuine intention of exploring the truth, not simply to "win," embarrass, or provoke. Assume the other person is also operating under this principle until proven otherwise.
2. Intellectual Humility: Be Willing to Be Wrong Enter the discussion with the understanding that your current position could be flawed or incomplete. The goal is to refine your own views through challenge, not just defend them at all costs. Acknowledge valid points made by the other person.
3. The Principle of Charity: "Steel Man" Their Argument, Don't "Straw Man" It Instead of misrepresenting your opponent's position to make it easier to attack (a "straw man" ), do the opposite. Articulate the strongest, most persuasive version of their argument you can, and then respond to that. If you're unsure, ask, "So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying ...
