The Art Of Argument
In any argument, the one who raises their voice loses the upper hand. In an online argument, the one who resorts to abuse or ad hominem attacks loses ground first. If you are someone who gets riled up in every disagreement, you are unfit for any form of discourse.
The Greeks are known for developing some of the most sophisticated methods of discourse. Debate and discussion were actively encouraged because they were seen as tools for arriving at a greater truth.
We no longer do this, and the reason is simple. Winning the debate matters more to us than discovering the truth. If the objective were genuinely to uncover what is true, then the cost of the process would not matter. That cost could even include abandoning your own position or identity.
Today, arguments are often used as a means to assert authority. Raising one’s voice or resorting to ad hominem attacks is a clear sign that an opinion has been tied to personal identity. Why else would someone shout instead of refining their arguments?
This is why many companies fall into cycles of toxic work culture. Leaders become incapable of dealing with counterarguments. To them, dissent feels like a direct challenge to authority. The psychology behind this lies outside the scope of this essay.
Arguments cannot exist where absolute facts are involved. If you argue in such a domain, it indicates ignorance of the facts. At that point, the objective is no longer to arrive at truth but to avoid acknowledging it.
Non-factual arguments almost always revolve around abstract moral ideas. In such spaces, facts are rarely absolute. They are personal, subjective, and often murky. This is precisely why politics invites intense argument.
One person’s sense of what is right often differs from another’s, and conflict naturally follows.
At its core, an argument is a clash between two perspectives on what is right. We are dealing with contrasting interpretations of the same subject. The topic is shared, but the conclusions differ. The objective, therefore, should be to arrive at common ground where both perspectives intersect.
Finding this middle ground is essential, because only from there can we rediscover what is true, or at least what is the least false conclusion. In matters of abstract morality, where absolute truth is unattainable, we must settle for the least false position.
Every argument should first be dissected to identify common ground. Where do both sides agree? Only then should each facet of disagreement be examined. The sooner you locate the true source of divergence, the better positioned you are to resolve it.
For example, the British often argue that colonialism benefited the countries they ruled. Their primary claim is that colonial rule introduced technology, infrastructure, education, and functional administrative systems. This argument is further reinforced by pointing to the state of many former colonies after British withdrawal.
If your immediate reaction is to dismiss this as a lie, you have already lost the argument. Emotion must be set aside so the claim can be examined properly.
The common ground here is undeniable. Britain had access to some of the most advanced technology of its time. At the height of the empire, its navy was unmatched. That technological and military power was indeed deployed across its colonies. Educational systems were reshaped. Administrative structures were established.
The real question, then, is this. Were these changes implemented for the benefit of the colonies, or were they designed to ensure that British families could live a British way of life across the empire?
Another question follows naturally. Where did the money come from? Was it generated through productive revenue systems and reinvested locally, or was it extracted systematically from existing wealth, what many would call loot?
The first question can be explored through archival records and parliamentary debates. The second can be examined through revenue data. How much wealth was generated, and how much was extracted?
Questions like these allow us to acknowledge the common ground. The British were powerful, resourceful, and home to some of the finest minds of the twentieth century. That does not mean they did favors for others. They had no obligation to do so.
The resentment toward British colonialism is not a denial of British intelligence or strength. If the argument were limited to the claim that they conquered the world because they were strong, it would be accurate, as this concerns an established fact.
The real debate is about benevolence, which is an abstract concept. That is why Socratic reasoning becomes necessary. By asking structured questions, we move incrementally closer to determining whether colonial rule was genuinely benevolent.
If this approach is so straightforward, why is healthy discourse so rare? Because for most people, surrendering an opinion feels like surrendering their identity. Opinions become fused with identity, which hardens into ideology.
Put bluntly, we are hypocrites. We avoid debates where our arguments are weak but our beliefs are strong. Instead of sacrificing beliefs in pursuit of truth, we sacrifice truth to protect false beliefs.
We first form beliefs based on biases and inherited prejudices. Then we construct opinions around them. Once those opinions exist, we cherry-pick facts to reinforce them, convincing ourselves of our intellectual superiority.
The process should be reversed. No opinion should be allowed to exist without being thoroughly examined. Even then, one must remain willing to abandon it when presented with credible counterevidence.
We struggle with discourse because we refuse to entertain the possibility that we might be wrong. That refusal is precisely where we go wrong.
If you consider yourself an intellectual, try this exercise. Watch three videos by someone you absolutely cannot tolerate on a subject you care deeply about. It could be religion, politics, sports, or art.
Notice how your body reacts. Observe how your mind resists engagement, how you squirm, waiting for it to end.
Now try to listen carefully. Engage with their points and attempt to counter them without insults or ad hominem attacks. If you cannot do this, you are part of the problem the world is struggling with.
You would rather be comforted by lies than risk changing your opinion in the pursuit of truth. Seeking truth is an elite behavior, because it requires the courage to face contradiction and the humility to accept that you may have been wrong.
Discourse is an art practiced by those for whom truth matters more than identity. Those who cannot engage in discourse lack the capacity for truth. Change yourself before there is nothing left to change.