No 67: The Debate Escalation
Knowing how to debate and argue a point is important. Knowing how to persuade and win a debate can be even more important.
Knowing when you have lost or even more necessary, knowing when you are going to lose… is vital. This last point is a career (life) saver.
The old adage “knowing when to fight your battle is half the battle” sums it up.
Why am I writing about this today?
I want to quickly summarise the “how do you win an argument ladder” because I am beginning to think that many people don’t fully grasp all of the steps in the escalation ladder.
I recently wrote this piece on applying a “treatment ladder” model to diets, and now I think the same thing needs to be applied to arguements.
Almost every article I have read or podcast that I listened to, keeps telling me that the world is becoming a more tribal, divided and ideological place. This was especially clear in a recent Triggernometry podcast by
and Richard Grannon.An Ideaological World
In a world where people stick to ideologies it is even more important for people of all sides to understand the rules of the game and to understand the consequences of getting those rules wrong.
Especially, if you sit within one of these silos and like to argue with other people. Or if you are someone geniunely looking for “the truth” and don’t know who to believe.
Surely this doesn’t apply to medicine?
Yes - it does. These rules apply to debates about soft furnishings, they apply to political debates, they apply to science and they apply to medicine!
These rules of escalation are universal! For proof, please see the following books:
Arguements that can cause heated debates in medicine:
Do lockdowns prevent the spread of respiratory viruses?
Do masks prevent the transmission of respiratory viruses?
Does vitamin D improve immunity and reduce the severity of infections?
Do statins given for primary prevention prolong life?
Should more money be spend on treating childhood cancer or preventing dementia? If there are limited resources.
Each of the above questions will prompt very vigorous debate among many kinds of healthcare professionals. I would bet that no matter what arguement or data was given there would still be two camps fighting it out on all of these questions. The ideological camps exist because people have bought into the ideas, want to believe them or paid to believe them. You won’t change someone’s mind if they are paid to believe it.
So, yes this escalation ladder applies to all walks of life.
The Escalation Ladder
The following list will start with the “weakest solutions”, then go to the reasonable and then to the “strongest or most aggressive”…
The weaker side gives in without a fight because they don’t want to argue and are happy to accept/ believe whatever you say.
The weaker side gives in to avoid a debate, and will go along with you but internally doesn’t agree.
There is a reasoned debate and the weaker person accepts that their data or logical argument is not as strong as yours and therefore changes their view (the goldstand of debating).
There is a reasoned debate and the other person gives in because they believe that your erroneous data is correct, and doesn’t challenge it sufficiently. (Accidental error)
There is a reasoned debate and they give in because they believe your arguement that is full of indoctrination and propoganda. (Deliverate misinformation)
There is disagreement but they are worried about the consequences and therefore, give in. Coercion. Loss of their job, their prestige, their income, their funding, etc. Obedience without a change of view.
Deliberate threat of severe coercion or violence, prevents any debate and forces submission. For example, being arrested for hate speech, or the Huguenots fleeing France to escape religious persecution.
Deliberate slaughter by one group against another to eradicate all those who believe a particular idea. The Inquisition or Pol Pot attacking the intelligentsia. The attempt to destroy your idea by killing all those who believe it (check out the film V for Vendetta).
Conclusion
For people who have never thought about debate and violence before, this ladder may seem extreme and rediculous. From soft furnishings, to public health and Pol Pot.
However, I would argue that people should realise that in a civilised world we should aim for a “reasoned debate” (the gold standard) but not forget that behind some “debates” many people would be happy to rely on force.
In this world, no one will ever agree on everything. Some people will stick to their ideologies and if given enough power, they may want to inflict their ideas on you.
We need to keep our critical thinking skills sharp, and watch out for those arguements that rely on coercion, not data.
Very good article. Very important topic. Do you think UK schools should have debate clubs like the US? I feel, that to debate is almost looked down upon in the UK as somehow rude. They key to debate is to be able to first ask yourself questions, when you understand all that you can, you must then ask other people those questions. Here, both geographically and temporally we dont like questions so much.