One method which has become quite fashionable in live discussion is that of frequently interrupting a person's chain of thought or argument, breaking the discussion into a jumbled pile of disconnected sound bites. This proves especially effective if one keeps jumping into the middle of a response to each succeeding point with another, and never lets the person replying to one's arguments have a chance to go back and finish his rebuttal. There is even a term for this tactic. It's called "swamping". It is named after the misfortune that befalls someone in a small boat, who finds that before he can bail out the water that has splashed into a boat from one wave, he is hit by the next.

To dissect a fallacy requires the establishment of a far more complex logical structure than went into the flip remark that put the fallacy out onto the floor. That structure is not merely something erected to support what one is saying, it is what one is saying. Imagine trying to erect a scaffold as someone is throwing bricks at it. You will never get it up.

That is what the person who keeps interrupting is doing to the person who attempts a rational response. He (well, actually, usually she) is refusing to allow him the time to erect that logical structure, leaving him with, at most, an opportunity to give an unassembled sequence of fragments of arguments, with the connection between the fragments never being allowed the chance to be established by the speaker. It is those connections that form the substance of what is being said, or rather, what someone is attempting to say. It is those connections that are the expression of the speaker's thoughts, not to be confused with his gut reactions. To refuse the person to do so, is to refuse to allow him his right to speak freely.


The question is, how does one deal with this? Some have taken the temptingly easy approach of simply walking away when encountering someone who resorts to tactics like this. I won't judge them. I've done that myself, many, many times. But, when this is what is ALWAYS done in response, it gives the sort of people who argue in this way, exclusive control of the floor of discussion. They can end any discussion bringing out considered arguments inconvenient for one of their causes, simply by showing up and cutting it off.

Who will be the sort who make use of these tactics, except for those whose thought processes really are as disjointed as the arguments they offer? Only those dishonest enough to be willing to stifle the making of arguments, in lieu of offering rational counterargument. An honest man respects the value of the truth, and seeks to act in such a way as to enhance the likelihood of its recognition and acceptance. But, if one makes use of a debating tactic whose effectiveness is not dependent on the validity of the point it is used in support of, then any intelligent man knows that the practice of adopting it, does not serve to make the truth a thing more often found and embraced than it might otherwise be. So, if the course of discussion is left in the hands of lunatics, liars and fools, what can one hope for in its resolution?

Yet this is the process by which a republic chooses its leaders, and a people allowed the opportunity to enjoy freedom, makes the consenses that define the way in which it lives. What may we hope for, but a slow descent into horror and madness, if we place the governance of this process, in the hands of the worst among us?

Consider the absurdities of the American political process, and ask yourself if what we are seeing is the best we, as a society, have to offer in the way of insight.


In person, every once in a while - blessedly, not often - I find myself sufficiently disturbed by the course of discussion around me, that the value of intervention, justifies the premature ulcer I'm probably working on, while I do so. But to intervene meaningfully, when the barroom style debating tactics that have become customary are in play, calls for a little feistiness. Remember that the "ettiquette" called for in the course of discussion, was one intended for a class of society that was supposed to "mind its place". When those who practice it find themselves easily stifled, that isn't a coincidence. That's what the system of rules was designed to do, in the first place. Keep the people docile, and unquestioning of the existing order. The difference now, is that instead of being silenced by the aristocracy, we've passed the job of doing this to us, along to the village idiot, and every thug and crook we meet on the way to see him.

No apologies. In person, I will make my points, without allowing my chain of thought to be broken. If someone tries to cut me off, I will steamroller him. If he raises his voice, I will raise mine higher, and I will not "let it go". If someone wishes to act as if conversation was a form of combat, let each of us around him prepare for the war he has made of the discussion he enters. Let us do so with a sense of determination. At first, those who adopt this strategy encounter hostility. But the base of support for this hostility comes from those who seek peace at any price in social interaction, and like any set of cowards who find their wishes thwarted long enough, they will become resigned in time to the new reality. Those who seek their understanding in sound bites, preferring ease to understanding, will find that actively taking part in such discussions, proves too tiring for them.

continue