I recently read a book that said that when you argue with your children, you should argue generously. (“Argue generously” is my rephrasing of what the author said.)
That is, you shouldn’t win the argument only because you’re more articulate, or louder, or know how to spin words around better than they do.
You should try to argue against the best argument that the child COULD present, even if he’s not capable of presenting it. Don’t pretend that his point is only as good as he’s able to articulate at the age of 14. Don’t win an argument by being a better arguer.
[I only have a toddler, but there are lots of times when I know what she wants, even though she can’t say it properly. If I don’t want to give it to her, it’s tempting – but a bad idea – to pretend that I misunderstand her.]
Of course, this is good advice no matter who you’re arguing with.
If you’re only winning because you know how to avoid the best points of the other side, or you know how to hide the weaknesses of your own points, then you’re not doing right. Intellectual dishonesty will never save the day.
Admit your weaknesses, help the other person find their strengths, then demolish them anyway! Much more satisfying that way.
[Reminds me a bit of the game of Pente. In short, you try to get five stones in a row. In one variation (the one I like) you’re supposed to tell the other person when you’ve got four in a row, so that they have a chance to block you. You even tell them when you’ve got three unblocked stones in a row.]
Yeah and in chess you have to say “check” when you’ve endangered the other player’s king.
That’s true. Though, in chess, the rules FORCE the other person to get out of check.
You’re presupposing intent. For some, the argument itself is a sort of game, and the goal is winning, not determining the right answer. I’ve even heard of people who will argue either side of an issue, or make an argument specifically to encourage others to take the opposite side. This is the highest purpose of arguing, especially with children—you should establish your superiority with them so they will tend to obey in the future. You should choose the more plausible side of the issue to make your argument more likely to win, not be obsessed with right and wrong.
Of course, Bruce is correct, but I think he hasn’t gone far enough. Follow through is key, here. Once you’ve won an argument it’s important to constantly bring the point back up and harrass your opponent with how wrong they were, thus discouraging further challenges. Opponent: “I think we should take action A”. Me: “Oh, jeez, another great idea from you, huh? Is this one going to be as stupid as that time you suggested we take action C? Because you remember how that argument turned out, right?”
This is especially effective with your spouse.
It really DOES take a village. I’m so thankful to have you guys around for advice.
LOL, Kevin. However, I’d argue that it’s a practice best used on children. You may manage to thoroughly annoy and upset a spouse, but imagine how it works on a child when done by a parent.