Do you sometimes wonder how best to argue or debate in order to win a point? I have read posts by a group of people who were debating some national issues. Nearly all the debates degenerated into abuse and ended up being linked with ethnic undertones.

Unless one of the parties manages the situation well, either by submission or walking away, it can turn quickly into a serious dispute. Unfortunately, most people are not renowned for walking away from disputes!

A Nigerian President, General Babangida was the first Nigerian leader to take political advantage of Nigerian appetite for argument in an attempt to sell the structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) to Nigerians. He simply announced a national debate on the matter and Nigerians fell for it. There is no doubt that Nigerians love any occasion to debate or argue and persuade others to see things their way, even when there is contrary evidence against the point they are making.

One sometimes wonders whether people really understand the basic requirements of a persuasive dialogue. Literally, a persuasive dialogue is when two people engage each other with the sole aim of using persuasive arguments to get the other party to see things the way he is propositioning. Put it this way, in a persuasion dialogue, two people (called the “proponent” and the “respondent”) engage each other. They ask questions and put arguments to each other. The aim is to get the other person to agree to the propositions be used to prove one's own view by a connected chain of persuasive arguments.

Following from the above, a persuasive dialogue has two elements. One element is the two participants, which I have referred to as the proponent and the respondent. The second element is the two propositions (i.e. statements). The proponent expresses a view about something, say, a positive view of Ojukwu’s role in the Nigerian – Biafra war. Then the respondent expresses a negative view of Ojukwu’s role in the Nigerian – Biafra war.

The two people engaging each other have different views of the same event but only one proposition is true. The audience or readers may know very little about the incident being argued about and would support the participant (either the proponent or the respondent) who they consider to be the most logically convincing. The implication of this is that the participant that wins the majority of the audience (or readers) may not necessarily be the one that is correct.

Argument is part of life. An argument is any discussion where you have a disagreement or contrary opinion to someone. You would have come across many instances when people say, “I am not arguing but just making a point”. Do not believe it! If you are making a contrary point you are arguing. In fact the denial itself is a follow up argument. Argument in itself is nothing to be ashamed of as it broadens your knowledge base. However, it is when you badly managed an argument that it becomes unhealthy.

In order to be able to argue well and encourage people to see things your way you need to have good communication skill, tolerance and a clear understanding of your target audience. These do not only make you feel more respect for yourself but they also make you respect others. You need not be rude or hostile to anyone who holds a contrary opinion nor should you be a doormat for anyone to walkover.

Some people dread the thought of having to disagree with anyone, particularly those they hold in high esteem. They will go that extra mile to appease and become very passive. You never really know how they feel. You could tell these sort of participants by looking at their opinions on issues over a period of time. Their position on any issue is influenced by the views expressed by those they regard as the stronger participants.

Others are very angry and frustrated with what life has bestowed on them and they take it out on the other participants. For them every argument is an opportunity to scream obscenities on others who dare to disagree with them. They feel relevant when they have the opportunity to argue with other participants. Unless the opposing participants back off, the argument could easily degenerate into something else and at the end of it all no one would know what the original argument was about.

Do you think you can argue successfully? You can argue successfully if you are able to answer yes to each of the following questions:

1. Are you able to listen and acknowledge other people’s point of view with an open mind?
2. If an argument is intensive, can you still be able to demonstrate to the other person that you are listening?
3. Can you take time to think, without being too hasty, before you reply or express an opinion?
4. Are you able to tell the other person that you need time to think even when you are under pressure to give an immediate answer?
5. Can you resist being sidetracked by points that are not relevant to current debate?
6. Can you keep stressing your point even when others refused to agree with you?
7. You don’t blame others if their beliefs are different from yours?
8. You don’t feel embarrassed if you have to agree with someone once you realised that the other person has a valid point?
9. Do you agree that argument is not a life and death situation; therefore you must be ready to compromise and achieve a “win/win” outcome in any argument?
10. You don’t see wining an argument as more important than hurting your relationship with others?

If you answer no to any of the above questions, then you are not likely to be able to handle argumentative situations, without falling foul of the rules implied in the questions. I would advise you be careful when you are involved in any argument.

A few months ago I saw the following arguments that made me laugh. I wish to pass it on to you. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did:

“There were 3 good arguments that Jesus was Black:

1.  He called everyone "brother"

2.  He liked Gospel

3.  He couldn't get a fair trial.”

“But the most compelling evidence of all - 3 proofs that Jesus was a woman:

1.  He fed a crowd at a moment's notice when there was no food.

2.  He kept trying to get a message across to a bunch of men who just didn't get it.

3.  And even when he was dead, He had to get up because there was more work to do.

Lastly, it may interest you to know that Economists are the world worst argumentators because they always end their arguments by adding “all things being equal”, which in effect means you believe them at your peril. While Journalists are the world best argumentators because they always remind you that they get their information from “sources close to ….”

Nosa Olotu, UK

Robot  Villager

# 1 var sbtitle2994=encodeURIComponent(Dummies’ Gu...Read the full article. Posted by Robot| 07.01.2008 14:44

Shoko Loko Bangoshe  Villager

# 2 Nosa, Thanks for a very enjoyable read. I thought that I would take the little quiz that you included in the article: 1. Are you able to listen and acknowledge other people’s point of view with an open mind? I try to. Indeed, I believe that by closing my mind off to an alternative point of view - no matter how much I disagree with it - I am depriving myself of knowledge. 2. If an argument is intensive, can you still be able to demonstrate to the other person that you are listening? Again, I try to, because of point 1 above. However, if the argument is getting too heated, I may simply summarise our points of disagreement and walk away. 3. Can you take time to think, without being too hasty, before you reply or express an opinion? If the argument is heated and passions are involved, then it's hard to do. Obviously, it's easier doing this with online debates. 4. Are you able to tell the other person that you need time to think even when you are under pressure to give an immediate answer? I don't think that I would need to do this for an argument where nothing important was at stake. I don't have a problem retracting an earlier statement if it was made in error, so I shouldn't need to worry about thinking about saying the right thing. 5. Can you resist being sidetracked by points that are not relevant to current debate? I love being sidetracked - the joy of an argument is in the journey, not the destination 6. Can you keep stressing your point even when others refuse to agree with you? Yes, I try to make it clear what my position is, even though people may not agree with it. 7. You don’t blame others if their beliefs are different from yours? I don't know that the word 'blame' is appropriate here - it's not as if holding the opinions they hold is a mortal sin 8. You don’t feel embarrassed if you have to agree with someone once you realised that the other person has a valid point? No, not at all. That's whole point of arguments - to discover new knowledge and correct existing knowledge. 9. Do you agree that argument is not a life and death situation; therefore you must be ready to compromise and achieve a “win/win” outcome in any argument? I rarely ever see arguments as life and death situations if I am not at risk of material harm if I lose the argument. I wouldn't say that I have to compromise in this case - I can still hold my view, and the other person can still hold theirs. In fact, even if I viewed the argument as life-and-death, I would be even less likely to change my opponent's view by adopting massive firepower tactics. 10. You don’t see wining an argument as more important than hurting your relationship with others? Definitely not. Posted by Shoko Loko Bangoshe| 07.01.2008 17:29

NWANZA  Villager

# 3 I like your write up because the situation in this forum just goes that way in most arguments, and some folks loose their handle just trying to drown other peoples opinions. “There were 3 good arguments that Jesus was Black: 1. He called everyone "brother" 2. He liked Gospel 3. He couldn't get a fair trial.” The above happens to be my favorite argument, if my opponents care to find out the facts! Posted by NWANZA| 07.01.2008 18:25

Enforcer  Villager

# 4 =Shoko Loko Bangoshe;4294978072>Nosa, Thanks for a very enjoyable read. I thought that I would take the little quiz that you included in the article: 1. Are you able to listen and acknowledge other people’s point of view with an open mind? I try to. Indeed, I believe that by closing my mind off to an alternative point of view - no matter how much I disagree with it - I am depriving myself of knowledge. 2. If an argument is intensive, can you still be able to demonstrate to the other person that you are listening? Again, I try to, because of point 1 above. However, if the argument is getting too heated, I may simply summarise our points of disagreement and walk away. 3. Can you take time to think, without being too hasty, before you reply or express an opinion? If the argument is heated and passions are involved, then it's hard to do. Obviously, it's easier doing this with online debates. 4. Are you able to tell the other person that you need time to think even when you are under pressure to give an immediate answer? I don't think that I would need to do this for an argument where nothing important was at stake. I don't have a problem retracting an earlier statement if it was made in error, so I shouldn't need to worry about thinking about saying the right thing. 5. Can you resist being sidetracked by points that are not relevant to current debate? I love being sidetracked - the joy of an argument is in the journey, not the destination 6. Can you keep stressing your point even when others refuse to agree with you? Yes, I try to make it clear what my position is, even though people may not agree with it. 7. You don’t blame others if their beliefs are different from yours? I don't know that the word 'blame' is appropriate here - it's not as if holding the opinions they hold is a mortal sin 8. You don’t feel embarrassed if you have to agree with someone once you realised that the other person has a valid point? No, not at all. That's whole point of arguments - to discover new knowledge and correct existing knowledge. 9. Do you agree that argument is not a life and death situation; therefore you must be ready to compromise and achieve a “win/win” outcome in any argument? I rarely ever see arguments as life and death situations if I am not at risk of material harm if I lose the argument. I wouldn't say that I have to compromise in this case - I can still hold my view, and the other person can still hold theirs. In fact, even if I viewed the argument as life-and-death, I would be even less likely to change my opponent's view by adopting massive firepower tactics. 10. You don’t see wining an argument as more important than hurting your relationship with others? Definitely not. Shoko Loko Bangoshe, Assessment: If you say "Thanks for a very enjoyable read" it means you have taken the time to read and take in the message. That means you now fully understand and possess the skill required to take part in an argument or debate. Remark: Pass with merit. Posted by Enforcer| 08.01.2008 02:37

Enforcer  Villager

# 5 =NWANZA;4294978082>I like your write up because the situation in this forum just goes that way in most arguments, and some folks loose their handle just trying to drown other peoples opinions. “There were 3 good arguments that Jesus was Black: 1. He called everyone "brother" 2. He liked Gospel 3. He couldn't get a fair trial.” ! The above happens to be my favorite argument, if my opponents care to find out the facts! NWANZA I agree with you on the issue of who Jesus really was! As you rightly implied, the article was actually aimed at educating (if possible) some Villagers who can't conduct themselves in argumentative situations. It will be interesting to know how many of those villagers that regularly throw tantrums when you disagree with them will take the test. It is encouraging to know that Shoko Loko Bangoshe took the test even when he knew it was not designed for his type. Posted by Enforcer| 08.01.2008 06:11

mulan  Villager

# 6 Nosa, I think some of the test questions as highlighted are wrongly constructed if one is to meet the criteria in bold underlined. Those questions must then necessarily have negative answers as demonstrated by Shoko... Do you think you can argue successfully? You can argue successfully if you are able to answer yes to each of the following questions: Are you able to listen and acknowledge other people’s point of view with an open mind? If an argument is intensive, can you still be able to demonstrate to the other person that you are listening? Can you take time to think, without being too hasty, before you reply or express an opinion? Are you able to tell the other person that you need time to think even when you are under pressure to give an immediate answer? Can you resist being sidetracked by points that are not relevant to current debate? Can you keep stressing your point even when others refused to agree with you? You don’t blame others if their beliefs are different from yours? You don’t feel embarrassed if you have to agree with someone once you realised that the other person has a valid point? Do you agree that argument is not a life and death situation; therefore you must be ready to compromise and achieve a “win/win” outcome in any argument? You don’t see wining an argument as more important than hurting your relationship with others? If you answer no to any of the above questions, then you are not likely to be able to handle argumentative situations, without falling foul of the rules implied in the questions. I would advise you be careful when you are involved in any argument. Posted by mulan| 08.01.2008 07:39

Enforcer  Villager

# 7 =mulan;4294978162>Nosa, I think some of the test questions as highlighted are wrongly constructed if one is to meet the criteria in bold underlined. Those questions must then necessarily have negative answers as demonstrated by Shoko... mulan, You are a star! From the way you are looking at it, you are correct. But here is my argument for an alternative interpretation: Your answers are marked "yes" if you agree with the substance of the question and "no" if you disagree. So it does not matter if you have said “no” to some of the questions. The reason for constructing the questions this way is to catch people who may want to fake their answers!! For example: Question 8. You don’t feel embarrassed if you have to agree with someone once you realised that the other person has a valid point? Shoko answer was: "No, not at all. That's whole point of arguments - to discover new knowledge and correct existing knowledge." Brilliant! The marking for him in this case is "yes" because he agreed that he does not feel embarrassed if he has to agree with the other person once he realised that the other person has a valid point. Posted by Enforcer| 08.01.2008 16:36

mulan  Villager

# 8 Enforcer, I agree with your arguement but you could also ask, " Can you agree with someone once you realise they have a valid point without feeling embarassed?" BTW, you have passed this particular test and demonstrated that you would make a fine debater by your first sentence below. However, the next words put a small but... (tongue in cheek) From the way you are looking at it, you are correct. But here is my argument for an alternative interpretation: Your answers are marked "yes" if you agree with the substance of the question and "no" if you disagree. Posted by mulan| 09.01.2008 14:22

Sapele Man  Villager

# 9 =mulan;4294978502>Enforcer, I agree with your arguement but you could also ask, " Can you agree with someone once you realise they have a valid point without feeling embarassed?" BTW, you have passed this particular test and demonstrated that you would make a fine debater by your first sentence below. However, the next words put a small but... (tongue in cheek) mulan The way you write, you seem quite composed. Why is this? It is rude to ask a woman how old she is, so I wouldn't ask you! I did try to answer the questions. I agree with you that some of the questions require a "no" answers. I am relieved that Enforcer suggested the marking for "no" in such cases means "agreed". I do see your point that a straight question would have been a suitable alternative. Well, I suppose there is a motive for constructing it the way the author did. Posted by Sapele Man| 10.01.2008 08:52

Enforcer  Villager

# 10 =Sapele Man;4294978679>mulan The way you write, you seem quite composed. Why is this? It is rude to ask a woman how old she is, so I wouldn't ask you! Sapele Man Is this the latest chat up line? I understand your point and thought so as well....except that age did not come to my mind. Posted by Enforcer| 10.01.2008 13:22

---

The conversation continues in our forum. Click here to read all comments

---