How to Argue Honorably

In an iconic sketch by the British comedy troupe Monty Python, a man visits an Argument Clinic, prepared to pay for the pleasure of some brainy give-and-take. He gets instead an arguer who denies every statement that he makes.

“This isn’t an argument,” the customer protests.

“Yes, it is,” the arguer replies.

This goes on until the customer exclaims, “This is futile!”

The same could be said of many arguments. Those between couples often devolve into what a poet-friend calls “loathsome discussions.” As for politics–even to discuss them in 2023 is to risk censure and enmity from the other side.

Webster’s defines argument as “a discussion in which there is disagreement.” Nothing is said about a battle of wills or trying to dominate, humiliate, or crush the opposition. That may be the goal in a public debate, but it’s a bad strategy in most forums. People have long memories and a penchant for revenge.

Democracy depends on honorable argument. In theory, citizens argue issues, then vote, trusting the wisdom of the many. Yet this process only works well when the goal of the argument is not to win but to arrive at the best result for all concerned. This notion seems naïve today. The "loyal opposition" has become the "vengeful enemy," plotting to grab the upper hand and make heads roll. Friendships are scuttled, families fractured, and marriages are blown up by scorched-earth arguments–and not just about politics.

An honorable argument is like the scientific method. It involves formulating and testing hypotheses in an honest quest to discover what answer is best. Being wrong, in science, is no disgrace but a valuable step on the path to being right. What is disgraceful is to cling knowingly to a wrong answer: The sun revolves around the flat earth. Period.

An honorable argument can’t take place if the arguer’s deepest desire is to win. The wish-to-win can quickly turn an argument into a fight. To argue honorably, both sides must be willing to learn from the opposition and accept being wrong if the evidence points that way. Most arguers find that very hard to do.

An honorable arguer must feel that his/her worth as a person transcends any issue or argument. Ours, though, is an insecure age. The verities of religion have been replaced by uncertainty. Breakdowns of family and community increase insecurity. And insecure people can’t abide being wrong. It makes them feel stupid, incompetent, and worthless.

To buttress their self-worth, as well as gain a sense of community, people may latch onto an idea or idea-cluster–small government, environmentalism, critical race theory–and cling as if it were a religion. To question any part of their idea is to threaten their identities, plus any power they may hold. This, in turn, may pop the psychological life-vest that keeps them from drowning in anomie and despair. No wonder so many fall back on name-calling and outrage.

A surprising number of people can’t muster a strong argument for their ideas, however strongly held. They may feel that their position is indisputable but can’t explain why. They may not have thought their ideas through sufficiently or taken their ideas from someone else and don’t know how they were derived. Or they may have latched onto positions in order to look virtuous in their own and others’ eyes. (Who can be against fairness? Or saving the planet?).

The situation is made worse by a tendency to see opponents as not mistaken but evil. For years, CNN News and Fox News have been the flip sides of the same coin. Supporters of each seem to feel that their side is the saintly "bringer of truth," and the other side is considered the demonic "spewer of lies."

Politics Essential Reads

Does Anger Drive the Political Pendulum Between Parties?

Why Freedom and Love Are the Only True Paths to Autonomy

How, then, can we argue honorably?

First–the hardest part–the arguer needs to feel psychologically secure and unshakably worthy. If any belief is central to a person’s sense of self-worth, that person is likely to react furiously if that belief is challenged. Honorable arguers aren’t threatened by the other side.

Arguing will likely be futile if one arguer can see that the other is insecure and defensive. If the argument must occur, the more secure arguer can at least enter the argument forewarned.

Once an argument begins, both parties should try their best to understand the other’s point-of-view, even if they vehemently disagree. Failure to do this constitutes a failure of courage, intellect, and imagination. It is dishonorable.

Think of the opposition, not as an opponent, but–until proven otherwise–a fellow truth-seeker. Don’t try to subordinate or humiliate him or her. The goal of an argument should be to show the other side the wisdom of joining with you, not to grind them into the dust. As the saying goes, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

If arguing with a friend or partner, reassure him or her of your continuing esteem, affection, or love. Avoid insults, shaming, and belittling. (“Well, that’s just stupid.” “I expected more from you.” “No decent person could....”).

Admit when the opposition makes a good point. Be open to compromising or changing your mind.

Accept that many questions have strong arguments on both sides. (Is abortion a kind of murder? Should trans women compete against cis women in sports?) People who disagree can still get along, or at least avoid outright enmity if both truly understand the other’s point of view and see each other as people of good will.

Some positions preclude mutual respect. Arguing with someone who wants to exterminate you for, say, being Jewish or because you wrote a book he didn’t like is unlikely to produce a meeting of the minds. Sometimes no-holds-barred conflict is inevitable. It may even be good.

In most cases, though, a relationship need not be doomed by disagreement. The willingness to disagree but not disengage is vital for friendship, marriage, and democracy. Arguments are inevitable. Arguing honorably can help ensure that war, real or metaphorical, is not.