Far Green Country

I’m keeping this post to link to from any argument space that I control, like my Facebook wall. I prefer to argue in an objective mode, even if the subject is religion, aesthetics, or politics. I wholly reject the proposition that all categorical statements are political.

This is what I expect from all participants:

1. Clarify any special terms you are using. Do not proceed to argue until you agree on the meaning of your words.

2. Do not use logical fallacies, which includes argument against identity, explicit or coded in buzzwords like “mansplain” or “femsplain.”

3. Do not tell other people what they think or feel. As a procedural necessity, everyone must be treated as an authority over their own experience.

4. If the argument gets heated, have each person summarize the other’s point and gain their acceptance of the interpretation before moving on.

5. If you are asked if you are arguing from a certain premise, give an unequivocal answer, no prevaricating with “It’s more complicated than that” if the question must have a yes-or-no answer. You can qualify your position, but at some point, you must also commit to a premise in order to argue at all.

6. Don’t indulge in sarcasm when countering someone’s points.

7. Take the most charitable interpretation of your opponent’s statements that you can.

8. Do not ask or expect other people to do your own research for you. “Google it” is not a valid rejoinder to a request for evidence.

General Observations:

Just as in a trial it is incumbent on the prosecution to build their case, in an argument the person advancing the proposition must supply their own evidence. People hate to be exposed as wrong, so asking them to supply evidence against their position is tantamount to asking the defense to support the prosecution’s case.

Instead of calling someone out on an obscure logical fallacy, say, “That’s not an argument,” and only elaborate if necessary. (Nod to Jack Raynard on this latter idea.) Character assassination is the genetic fallacy. You cannot win a rational argument with moral superiority. It doesn’t matter if your opponent is literally the Devil.

Charitable interpretation, even charitable inference beyond the literal words, demonstrates both your cleverness and reasonableness. People will think you’re either disingenuous or not very bright if you miss alternate valid interpretations to win points in an argument.

I’ve recently introduced my young nephews to D&D, and that inspired me to write a how-to series, which Loren Rosson III has been hosting on his excellent blog The Busybody. I’m gratified and humbled he’s supported the project. I started playing D&D in 1980, and a few years ago, I became interested in really figuring out what makes it work — that is, when it does. In 2014, I wrote a long essay for Baen Books that covers the history of D&D and indulges in some general theorizing, but I wanted to write a more practical guide on the topic. I got my nephews up and playing and having fun within an hour by explaining to them the core trappings of the game, which I cover in article one, and then adopting a viewpoint that I now outline in article two. I will probably write a third and final article that puts everything together, describing the adventure I wrote and ran for my nephews and how I employed my own advice to keep things moving.

Last month, I introduced my nephews Max and Eli and their friend Griffin to D&D. I hadn’t played in a while, and I needed to get back up to speed. I waded through several old rulebooks and also the Pathfinder rules, scavenging ideas about how to present the essentials to them. I also ended up buying the new, 5th Edition, rules. After a couple of weeks of this, I proposed an article series on D&D essentials to my friend the excellent writer Loren Rosson, and he generously agreed to support the project on his blog, The Busybody. Here’s the first article.