The Iron Man Argument

thank you

it’s a pleasure and a genuine honor to

be here with you this evening

i’d actually like to start tonight with

a joke

it’s an old joke arguing with the

philosopher

is like wrestling with a pig in the mud

after a few hours you realize the pig

enjoys it

now i can hardly lay claim to being a

philosopher myself

but having taught philosophy for the

past decade and having been a student of

philosophy

since long before that i can confidently

say that this is one thing that i

certainly do

share with the great philosophers of

human history

i enjoy getting down in the mud for a

good argument

indeed my family are here tonight and

i’m sure that they will be happy to

testify

to that fact

as this man understood arguments

are wonderful things discussions debates

arguments these are wonderful things the

thumping heart rate the surge of

adrenaline the quickfire retorts and

rebuttals

the thrill of landing on that perfect

example at just the right moment

when we engage in an earnest exchange of

ideas and perspectives we start to dig a

little bit deeper

get a little bit closer if not to an

answer at least

to a better understanding of the

question

arguments are wonderful things

but there are five words which are

poison

to a good argument when you hear this

ominous phrase you know

that the earnest exchange of ideas is

about to be put into grave danger

these are those five ominous words

so what you’re saying is so what you’re

saying is

so what you’re saying is what invariably

follows this line

think of the last time you heard someone

say this in a discussion or debate

and what followed was it a clear concise

summation of your argument

no experience tells us the reformulation

of our argument that we’re about to bear

witness to

is at best an oversimplification of the

argument that we just laid out

and at worst it will be a rendition of

the argument that is so thoroughly

mutilated

it couldn’t even be identified by its

dental records

it’s special cases you might even be

treated to this

six word variation

so what you’re really saying is

the beauty of this formulation is that

it boldly presumes

that we are incapable of saying what we

really mean

or perhaps even that we’re maliciously

obfuscating our true meaning

moreover it signals that we’re in for a

treat

we’re about to hear a translation of our

real meaning

a translation that let’s face it would

probably make google translate envious

in its ability to cling tenuously to the

literal

meaning of the original statement and

yet simultaneously transform the

substance of it entirely

so what are we talking about here what

is it quivering on the horizon when

on the horizon when we hear those five

fateful words

well this phenomenon is common enough

and as this is a room

full of tok students all very well

versed in logical fallacies

i think you probably recognize where

this is headed

these five words are indeed the common

prelude to

a straw man argument you may be familiar

with this

straw man argument is an informal

fallacy whereby one deliberately

misrepresents

their opponent’s argument in order to

make it easier

to attack now before i get too

comfortable up here on on my high horse

it’s important to note that it’s not

only other people that commit this

fallacy we’ve all fallen back on this

lazy

trope at some point some argument in our

history possibly earlier today

whoever the perpetrator is the signally

frustrating thing about the deployment

of these

straw man armies is that it derails the

debate

all the time and energy is now wasted on

mischaracterizing

each other’s arguments or lamely

attempting to salvage our own

all of which detracts from the primary

function

of discourse in the first place which is

to develop

through rational debate a clearer

understanding

of the relative merits of a set of

competing ideas

as karl popper noted the aim of an

argument

or of a discussion should not be victory

but progress

it is my contention tonight that a key

factor in the current unhinged state of

the world is our increasing inability to

engage in constructive discourse

it’s abundantly apparent to anyone who

has made the foolish mistake

of trying to engage in a critical debate

on the internet

foolish i know the discourse and debate

has become much

more about winning about defeating your

opponent

than it’s been about progress

well in a bid to help us reclaim this

lofty and noble aim

to help equip you with a means of

navigating hostile debates and moving

towards a more productive

discourse i present to you tonight

the antithesis of the straw man argument

i present the iron man argument

now before i outline the iron man

argument i just want to make take a

moment to elaborate briefly on the

problem

we live in what mark manson has dubbed

the age of

outrage manson suggests that we’ve

become addicted to our own

self-righteous outrage and in an attempt

to satiate our lust

for outrage we willfully and perhaps

even sometimes gleefully

misinterpret and misrepresent other

people’s arguments and ideas

in order to find for us a new source

of disgust and moral indignation

to illustrate this problem consider how

words of wisdom from thinkers

throughout human history would be

received today in the current climate

imagine for a moment that socrates

had shared his ideas not in the ancient

agora

but on twitter today

famous line from socrates here it’s a

disgrace for a man to grow old

without seeing the beauty and strength

of which his body is capable

imagine the sorts of replies that such a

comment might elicit in the current

climate

how swiftly would socrates be pilloried

for his narrow-minded body shaming

labelled a superficial jim bro accused

of self-absorbed vanity

a barrage of strawmen armies would

descend on that tweet and tear it apart

within moments now obviously to some

extent there’s always been a combative

element

to discourse and debate i’m not

suggesting this is some entirely new

phenomenon

however as ideological tribalism

political polarization have intensified

markedly in recent years

the animosity has become increasingly

palpable

one need only look at the verbs that are

starring in your favorite youtube titles

to get a glimpse

of this antagonism

think about the words that leap out here

these verbs

what we’re presented with destroy

annihilate

shred crush eviscerate

this is the language of destruction

these are videos garnering millions of

views by predominantly young people

across the globe

this this is the current state of the

discourse that is consumed by people

and imitated by people a world unhinged

indeed

and so what is the remedy what can we do

how can we counteract this animosity

how can we return to a state of

productive meaningful progressive

discourse

well as with basically all forms of

improvement it starts at home

we must start with ourselves with the

way that we choose to engage in

arguments and debate it’s not about

putting an end to arguments

but improving the way that we argue

importantly the iron man argument the

solution that i want to suggest to you

tonight

is not a tool for dismantling other

people’s arguments

it is not some surefire way for you to

win your next debate

i’m sorry in fact i want to suggest

quite the opposite

the iron man argument is not about

bolstering your own argument at all but

rather it’s about

refining rephrasing patching up

or in whatever way possible

strengthening your opponent’s argument

now i can see the gears turning in

people’s minds at this stage

so what you’re saying is but be careful

if you’re going to say so what you’re

saying is we should invest time

and energy in helping the person we’re

debating with to more effectively and

efficiently

win the argument then yes essentially

that’s correct

but hear me out before you storm out the

door what i’ve done the iron man

argument is really an approach to

discourse with a very long history

in philosophy sometimes goes by the name

the principle of charity

ultimately this is a methodological

presumption

that we make when engaging in an

argument or a discussion

whereby we first seek to understand

this view that we’re challenging here in

its strongest

most credible form before we subject the

view to appraisal

this is a really important point we must

reframe it in its strongest

most credible form

before

we’re permitted to evaluate the merits

of that argument

so here’s how it works when you engage

in a debate or argument next somewhere

out there in the wild

step one we momentarily suspend our own

beliefs

or disbelief as the case sometimes may

be

be open to the possibility that when

they claim what what they claim

may be true however outlandish it may

first appear

now this is a much more challenging step

than many people anticipate

but it is crucial as it helps us to

avoid slipping into a combative posture

from the outset step two

we presume the best of intentions this

is sometimes referred to

as hanlon’s razor now a common trap in

our current mode of discourse is

that we so frequently presume malicious

intent

our desire for outrage perhaps fuels

this impulse

but it’s important that we repress this

we must presume

the most noble intent step

three avoid the urge to first hunt for

weaknesses

one of our first impulses is to try and

spot fallacies and to spot a weakness in

an argument

and oftentimes we feel we’re being

remarkably clever when we dismiss an

argument for its use for fallacy but in

reality

i suggest you that we’re simply taking

the easy way out

of confronting the substance of that

argument

and if you really need convincing

remember the fallacy fallacy

which states that it’s an error in logic

to assume that a conclusion is false

simply because it commits a fallacy

checkmate

fallacy hunters

step four in cases of ambiguity in an

argument presume the most

cogent meaning for suppressed premises

for missing premises

for confusions of inductive or deductive

logic or simply when somebody uses

misleading or inaccurate phrasing when

they don’t have the right words

do your best to fill in the blanks with

the most reasonable and logically

consistent

amendments

and step five finally with all of the

above taken into consideration

we outline the argument of our opponent

as vividly

fairly and clearly as possible

they should respond to you with wow

i could have said it better myself if

and only if they’re happy with the

summation

that you’ve given them can you proceed

with the evaluation

exploring the merits of the argument

this is your starting point for a

discussion

importantly this approach does not

entail ultimately agreeing

with the arguments that are presented

with to you but it does ensure you are

engaging with the argument

in its most robust form in adding this

bulletproof layer of iron cladding we

undoubtedly lower our chances of winning

the argument

indeed we’ve actively stacked the odds

against ourselves

but we have gotten much closer to

actually gaining something from the

debate itself

and ironically a beneficial side effect

of this methodology

is that it begets imitation the

charitable act of interpreting someone’s

argument

in the most generous possible way

diffuses that simmering animosity

and it often fosters a willingness to

return the favor

it has a very potent disarming effect

and so my challenge to you tonight then

is to disband the straw man army stand

them down

and adopt instead the iron man argument

you will lose more arguments certainly

debates will be longer they will be more

difficult without a doubt

but you will ultimately revive that

capacity for a productive discourse

and so the next time you get down in the

mud for a good argument

and utter that fateful phrase so what

you’re saying is

surprise everyone around you thank you

[Applause]