Although it might seem like no one wants to have a fair argument anymore, it is very important to know how to have a civil talk, (or debate) or write a convincing essay/ article. In an ethical argument, both parties agree to only use logical reasoning (which means no intimidation tactics, yelling, insults, or personal attacks), and the topic is usually about moral disagreement (whether something is “right or wrong”). In my philosophy class, I have learned what not to do when trying to convince someone to change their mind with your wits and factual knowledge. These are the most common ways people lose ethical arguments or their audience's interest:

1. Using religious or personal beliefs as premises (that your opponent doesn’t share).

The very purpose of an ethical argument is to persuade or show the audience/ opponent that your argument is stronger/ more logical or discredit theirs. To achieve this, you must figure out what you and your opponent both agree to be true and then start where your reasoning diverges. If your justification falls back to “I believe this is wrong because it is,” or “the [insert sacred text here] says this is right,” you stop the argument from progressing if your opponent does not hold those same moral beliefs. You will discredit yourself when refusing to elaborate on your premises and failing to recognize that “because I think so” is not an appropriate way to convince someone that you are right.

2. Confusing moral right/wrong with legal implications.

Whether something is morally correct or not is completely different than if it should be legal. Although at first that seems confusing, how many times have you heard someone say, “I would never have an abortion because ____, but I still think it should be legal?” The justification behind this statement is usually that the individual realizes that banning abortions would violate women’s reproductive rights and abortions would still take place (though now unsafely). This concept fits the expression “everything works in theory,” which implies that the realistic consequences of an action or law must be looked at besides just the good intentions behind it.

Using an argument of morality against an opponent whose agenda is to legalize or ban something is ineffective, and a sure way to lose or draw a stalemate.

3. Being very passionate about the issue on the table (and showing it).

Emotional tactics are not supposed to have a role in logical arguments, but there is no sure-fire way to prevent yourself from getting upset, especially if you have personal connections to the issue. It is very important in a face-to-face argument to try to detach yourself from the topic to keep your mind sharp and uncluttered. Emotions like sadness and anger actually “take up space” in your brain. For example, if you take a test while being really annoyed at something your roommate did, you may get a lower grade than if you had been calm.

4. The “If I don’t see it, it doesn’t exist” justification.

This faulty argument seems to show itself the most when talking about issues that only affect specific groups of people, or one more than the others. This justification attempts to use a singular personal account to undermine the experiences of a large group of people. An example would be arguing, “I have never been assaulted and none of my friends or family have ever said they were, so therefore our country does not have a sexual violence problem.” Although it sounds ridiculous that someone could believe that their own life is representative and more important than those of millions of other people, I have seen this premise attempted, usually when someone is about to lose. This blatant denial of statistics and factual evidence is the final nail in the coffin to show your opponent or audience that you have no idea what you are talking about and are not taking the argument seriously.

5. Not defining the scope of your main point.

So are you talking about the United States, the Western world, the whole world, or a small village in Nigeria? Whatever you decide, your opponent/audience has to know as well, and you have to stick to it. If you are talking about regulating carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, do not bring up Switzerland unless you are prepared to go on a tangent about how the rest of the world deals with carbon dioxide emissions.

6. Mansplaining/Condescending Attitude

No matter who your audience is, you must treat them with respect and have trust in yourself that your argument is good enough to convince them. Nobody likes being told they are stupid or feeling like they are being personally attacked because of their current beliefs on an issue. It is very easy for them to close the book or switch the channel, and then your message will never get any attention.

And as a rule, people are way less likely to admit they are wrong to an opponent that is a jerk.

7. Faulty Facts and Statistics

Although it might seem like no one cares about fact-checking anymore when it comes to politics, having accurate data is a must in the academic world. Not properly citing sources can ruin a writer, scientist or professor’s career, so you should be just as careful. Even if it is not intentional, being misinformed can give you a reputation as a liar, and you may never get the opportunity to convince others of your wisdom ever again.