Honest vs. Dishonest Debate

What did he just say? I am half held in amusement, half held in stunned silence at some of the things that political figures, community leaders, and even nice friends at church may say.  Perhaps it is a good time to take a minute and discern the accidental Freudian faux pas from the intentional circumspection of the truth.  I found an interesting resource with a quick Google search of “honest debate.”  I found a site that you may wish to spend some time with called Intellectually Honest and Intellectually Dishonest Debate Tactics hosted by author John T. Reed, a coach, author, West Point Graduate and Harvard MBA. 

            Very interesting insight in to how to manage the most basic to the most complex conversation and I highly recommend a glimpse at his work.  According to Reed, there are really two kinds of discussion:  One that is intellectually honest and one that is intellectually dishonest.  The measure of the two is simple.  The honest discussion is grounded in fact or logic.  Period, and end of statement.  This means that you can fairly point out an error in your opponent based only on fact or logic.  If you do not use fact or logic then you are being intellectually dishonest, which is a fancy way of saying that you are twisting the truth and even lying.  According to the assessment and lengthy list by Reed, there are a lot of ways to twist or play with the truth to get your way and these methods achieve intellectually dishonest debate.  The goal for the intellectually dishonest debater is to not make his or her point only mind you, but simply to get his or her way.  Think about this next time you are talking/arguing with someone.  Step away from the heat of the moment and try to state only the fact or the logic.  Does your point hold?  Or do you retreat to one of the thirty plus tactics used to get a debate or discussion off track by intellectually dishonest means. 

There are quite a few strategies according to Reed.  They can include name calling, changing the subject, questioning the motives of the person, stating irrelevant facts, quoting hearsay, pulling in an unqualified expert opinion, being vague, stereotyping, cult of personality, sloganeering, creating a scapegoat, claiming privacy to information, arousing envy, innuendo, redefining words, rejecting logic as opinion, fake laughter, intimidation, peer approval, mockery and political correctness are but just a few on the list. 

Let me give you a few examples that Reed shared on his site.  Start thinking about this the next time you watch the news or subject yourself to the ongoing political debates and see how many that you can find now that your eyes are a bit open to the technique.  Keep it in mind at your next board or council meeting too.  Intellectual dishonesty is just second nature sometimes.  “Intellectually-dishonest debate tactics are typically employed by dishonest politicians, lawyers of guilty parties, dishonest salespeople, cads, cults, and others who are attempting to perpetrate a fraud,” shares Reed. 

Name calling and changing the subject is a fairly straight forward technique to derail an argument by minimizing the credibility of an opponent.  “Never mind that the facts are true, let’s just make him look bad” thinks the intellectually dishonest person.  Questioning the motives of an opponent may be clever but it is also insincere when it comes to debate.  “They just want to sell their product,” may be true, but if the facts are accurate then by all means, sell away.

Hearsay or the support of the support of unqualified expert opinion is a technique that should be easy to pick up on, but it can sneak by if you aren’t watching.  Look for the ads in the paper that are set up to read like an article or press release. 

What about sloganeering?  People love to fall for this one.  It is so much easier to grasp on to a slogan or phrase than to take the time to understand the reason or logic.  Does “Change you can believe in” ring any bells.  Following on this idea is the “cult of personality” where instead of sifting though logic and facts to choose a leader, someone votes because “I like him” or “I dislike him less” as the case may be.  Also, look out for “claims of information privacy” in discussions or debate.  Really?  If you can’t divulge that  incredibly private and negotiated contract that is at the heart of the point of decision or purchase, perhaps you should just move on to the next offer completely.

Stereotyping is a technique used to leverage a win too.  If I label you as too Ivory Tower and Too Smart for your own good, then you probably can’t understand the “real world” problem that we are dealing with here, so your ideas aren’t going to be relevant.  It is always best to keep to the facts, and the person that you are overlooking or minimizing may just have the missing key.

How about redefining words to suite your agenda and win the discussion?  In this technique the debater uses a word that helps him, but that does not apply, by redefining it to suit his purposes, like calling government spending “investment.”  Taking words or quotes out of context is a common strategy too, like the recent debate of whether or not Romney really “doesn’t care about the poor.”

Words mean things, and it can be a challenge to stick to the facts, and to require our leaders to stick to the facts.  As we move in to our election cycle, stay alert, and hold the speaker accountable.

Public Speaking for the Rest of US

Most people would rather do most anything than give a speech in front of a group. According to The Book of Lists, public speaking is the foremost fear in the world ranking higher than bugs, heights, deep water and even death. For some it just seems to come naturally, but for others there is drama, fear and ultimately brain shut down once in front of a group. Here are some ideas on preparing for the ultimate presentation, whether it is for your work, your church or that big conversation over the dinner table where all big decisions are really made. And remember, fear is a great motivator. To overcome your fear, you should take the time to know more on the topic than you need, practice, practice, practice, and find a way to connect wit your listener.

According to writer and speaker Dorothy Leeds in her book PowerSpeak, here are a few keys to breaking through the first gauntlet for great public speaking: FEAR

1. Admit your fear
2. Tap the energy that the fear produces
3. Recognize that fear is normal
4. Realize that your fear does not have to show
5. See yourself as a powerful speaker
6. See your audience as an ally
7. Speak about something that you care about
8. Combine preparation with practice
9. Devise tricks to psych out your fear (pretend everyone is in their underwear as Winston Churchill would do)
10. Don’t beat yourself up and keep it positive

We all have personal and professional goals, but one of the best recommendations from Leeds book is to make controlling your fear of public speaking a professional project. If you are good at anything from riding a bike to flying a plane, you had to practice and overcome a fear and public speaking is no different. So get out there and find ways to create opportunities to practice.

Poor speakers appear unclear of purpose, unorganized, and may be just too wordy. The audience comes away with that painful, bored to tears look on their face, or worse uninspired to act. Getting better is a lot easier when you realize what good really looks like, so find a mentor or someone to listen to you practice. Here is a note of caution to anyone who wants to listen, and that is DON’T GET YOUR MOM OR SPOUSE to watch you practice for the purpose of critique. What you don’t need is someone to tell you “You did great Honey!” The exception here is my husband who I require to tell me at least one thing to do better or differently. You want someone to really challenge you, to ask you what you think you can do better or differently and really make your speech or talk believable and interesting.

Lastly, take the time to really think and brood over what you want to say. Again, according to Leeds book, Abraham Lincoln was a notorious brooder, but as history shows, it truly paid off. Lincoln would think on his speech for days and keep little notes tucked into his hat. Up until the last moment he would ponder and polish, and now we know “Four score and seven years ago…….”