This is a big ask but I’m asking for any help you can provide me with a debate I’m having with several Trump supporters on FB. They are old college buddies of mine, and some I assume are good people. But seriously, they are capable of rational thought so I’m trying to avoid ad hominem attacks etc. Below is the argument I’ve developed so far. I welcome any feedback on how to improve this argument, good examples etc. I already have in mind several examples to support the argument like the current police riots and Trump trial balloons about additional terms. Most feedback might take the form of “Don’t waste your time” but I am a glutton for punishment I guess. I pretty much suck at written debate so any help is greatly appreciated:
Resolved: The United States is taking initial steps to becoming a Fascist political system under president Donald J. Trump and the Republican party. While the full and defining characteristics of Facism are not yet in place, there are several measurable trends which empirically demonstrate that USA#1 is headed in a Fascist direction.
As such, United States citizens who support the continued existence of a democratic republic have a moral duty to vote for the current opposition party at all levels, even if that party has nominated a potato for the executive branch and even if they disagree with the opposition party platform.
Any counter-argument attempting to show the benefits (like tax cuts) created by the current proto-fascist party can be refuted if there is agreement that USA#1 is better served with it’s current Constitution and rule of law.
Definition of Terms (To be amended throughout debate):
Facism A system of government characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy[3]
Propaganda: Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
I don’t know how accurate that is but for the debate I’d substitute “dictatorial” with “authoritarian”. “Dictatorial” invokes images of one all-powerful strongman which many in the US currently will consider impossible while “authoritarian” can mean an oppressive police state which after recent events might be much more palpable.
All of my advice or recommendations are about the how of arguing, not the what.
your first step is to understand (and I mean really understand) the place where their arguments are coming from, put yourself in that place, then form your arguments based on that world view…NOT yours. Facts and examples rarely work to change minds. They will find a way to rationalize them away. You need to frame the argument in such a way that it speaks to their values.
If you have time and are a fast reader, I recommend “Don’t Think of an Elephant” by George Lakoff. it’s not long and delves deeper into this. There’s also a podcast called Frame Lab that talks about it too.
One place to start is a technique called the Truth Sandwich:
Start with the truth. The first frame gets the advantage.
Indicate the lie. Avoid amplifying the specific language if possible.
Return to the truth. Always repeat truths more than lies.
Just remember that they don’t look at the world the same way you do. They may have similar values, but to them, those values are expressed very differently than they are for you.
This is quite a challenge and I wish you the best.
There is no surefire approach to persuading or changing people’s minds.
My background is in sales and I have applied sales techniques to these kinds of conversations with my friends and family, with varying levels of success. Here are some factors that you may want to consider:
People make decisions and/or change their minds based upon emotion, and then justify their choices later with logic. Right now you are charging in with logic, and little emotional tie-in.
Before you attempt to sell/persuade, it is imperative to do what is sometimes called “discovery”. Asking questions to gain understanding(especially about what is emotionally important to them), which then allows you to tailor your responses.
Find common ground/build rapport. These are your college friends, so you most likely have rapport. However, if you first find some common ground(however small) on the topics that you are discussing you can start to build agreement momentum as you move deeper into topics.
Also, I wouldn’t frame this as a “debate”. Most people view a debate as something where you pick a side, and changing your mind means you lost. This is a conversation among friends.
You’re coming at this all wrong. They don’t care if the USA is becoming facist. The facism is the point. They want the facism, as long as its their facists in charge.
I got invited to a right-wing “defend our town” group recently, mainly to watch, but they are being nice so far and not overly crazy. So I ventured to make a post.
Something I’ve noticed watching this for the past week. Most of the looters, etc are not the ones on the front line of the protest yelling slogans or chanting. I think folks, not just in Ramona, need to understand that yelling is not an incitement to actual violence.
So if you’re out and someone says “black lives matter,” it’s ok (and better) to just be silent defenders. Let them vent. People are hurting. No need to scream “all lives matter” back at them, or “Trump 2020” (by the way, I know plenty of Trump voters who are out protesting with the BLM folks) because that will not help to de-escalate the situation.
I wasn’t out a couple weeks ago screaming “stay home” at the protesters who were out waving signs about re-opening Ramona, even though I personally think we might be jumping the gun on that. It’s just not helpful, and no one’s mind will be changed.
When you go to a funeral, you know that’s not the time to bring up any grievances you might have with the deceased or their family, right? Let’s look at this the same way.
Finally, if you’re spending your time yelling back at the protesters, that’s less time you’re spending actually defending businesses.
Of course I think the idea of sitting around toting guns in the name of defending the town is completely ridiculous, but this isn’t about ME. It’s about ratcheting down the tensions that these idiots are causing by going out there and antagonizing the peaceful protesters, who are mostly high school kids. So while I never out and say I agree with their whole premise (that would be lying), I tried to frame this in ways that would speak to them and their ideas.
They are eating it up, btw. every comment is “thank you for posting this” even from some of the biggest deplorables there. Not to mention, my profile pic right now is a Black Lives Matter flag. I’m not hiding my affiliation, nor pretending to be one of them. They catch on to that pretty quick.
Don’t waste your time. The biggest problem related to debating Trump supporters is that you’ll never be able to agree on the most fundamental facts of politics. That means you’ll spend all day talking past each other rather than to each other.
If you’re going to do it anyway, you won’t be able to do it by pointing out that he’s this and that. You have to attack the moral foundation on which they base their political positions on. Battling them on abortion won’t do shit. You have to battle them on defining the value of a human life and then apply that to abortion.
First of all, thank you all! Every recommendation and piece of feedback is amazing! I really appreciate it
Agreed, I debated using that term but decided to proceed with the Wikipedia definition. I’m going to proceed with authoritarian for the reasons you cited. Thanks again!
Will get this book and use this technique. Thanks again!
Thanks for your recommendations. My background is in Procurement and while I used the techniques you mentioned in verbal negotiations, I just flat out didn’t think to do that here as it will be a written exchange.
Mostly I agree, I seem to still hold out some hope. (Sweet summer child)
This post is awesome! I’m reviewing in detail to reverse engineer cough steal for my own little foray. Thank you!
I’m in the process of getting agreement on “ground rules” to overcome this problem, but you are right, this is a huge issue.
You articulated something I’ve been struggling with but couldn’t define. I’m savvy enough to know that shouting, “Did you hear what he said at that press conference???” won’t work, but you crystalized this requirement for me. Thanks!
Alright, I’m off to go win hearts and minds. And if I can’t, then burn some villages with a zippo or something.
What’s interesting is when arguments get a bit abstract and philosophical, I’ve seen three routes that deplorables take:
Religion - One religion is invoked, the conversation is over. You’re not going to convert somebody in one debate. Might as well just go home at that point and not waste your time.
Cluelessness - Some people will just be taken aback by it because they’ve spent damn near 20 years getting talking points from FOX but not really thinking about the foundation of their beliefs. This is the ideal because here you can start the process of developing a new foundation for them to build on. It might not completely work but it could get them to reexamine their beliefs.
Stubbornness - Some people will have a terrible take on an issue and are so unwilling to change that they’ll hold onto a horrible moral principle so that they can (in their mind) save face.
in the case of #2, I only give them facts or references if they ask for them, and not before, and always in the context of what they are asking about. It helps to stay laser focused on a single topic.
If they aren’t being specific, drill it down. Say, “systemic racism.” If they ask about that, stick to ONE aspect of it only, don’t try to tackle the whole thing. I’ve shut a LOT of people up by talking about redlining, for example. It is an easily provable concrete example of systemic racism, and one that the VAST majority of people don’t know anything about.
Ugh, I misrepresented a little bit here. Yes, they watch massive amounts of Fox News, but they are actually “thoughtful” conservatives. They are very capable of presenting a cogent defense of their beliefs. As a budding progressive (I don’t even know what I am, anymore politically speaking), I’m the one bringing a knife to the gunfight.
ETA: Your guidance on drilling down is gold. They are quite adept at the “find 17 examples” tactic, for example.
This. You need to “speak conservative.” Ask them why they are conservatives, what political values are important to them, and then start trying to poke holes in Trump from that perspective.
If they are conservative because they believe in a strong, hawkish foreign policy you might want to bring up the way he used and tossed aside the Kurds, and how important it is to have strong allies in the region, then cite some Republicans saying the same thing.
If they are conservative because they think USA#1 is the bestest ever and Republicans are stronger on that, then you may want to frame arguments based on our rankings falling in various areas. How come South Korea and the US had their first coronavirus cases at the same time, and they’ve managed to keep it mostly under control? As the greatest country in the world, surely we have the resources at our disposal to do better than little old South Korea! That’s on Trump!
If they are conservative because they believe in lower taxes strengthening the economy, then you might want to go with an economic argument about how his mishandling of coronavirus has led to economic problems and is going to cost them money.
Seriously, though, if they’re actually smart, it’s very hard to remain conservative and thoughtful if you’re very well-read. There are almost no great books written by conservatively inclined folks. There are almost no great books that in any way endorse the compatibility of Trump support and intelligence. The best way to persuade smart people isn’t to challenge them directly on any specific political points; it’s to completely reorient their thinking so they wouldn’t even want to argue against your views. Let them discover the truth, gradually and subconsciously, on their own. Novels have a beautifully insidious way of accomplishing that.
Thanks Cuse, As always, your writing is hugely helpful. Thanks to you and everyone who responded for taking the time. I’m off to prepare opening arguments!