Troubleshooting

Repetition If you did it: You did it because... They forgot your argument. They didn't get it. They still haven't responded/they avoid answering. Solve this by... Just remind. Only a couple words reminder will do. They didn't get it for a reason. So say something new. 1) Consider why they haven't responded. 2) Say something new. Try being more specific.

Consider whether you actually understand. You may want to repeat if you yourself don't Try putting what they're saying into your understand what the other person is saying. own words. You thought they were saying the same thing, but they may have actually been making a distinction. Try putting what they're saying into your own words.

You should repeat yourself if and only if repeating yourself answers a new point or is tantamount to making a new point. Otherwise, don't. If they did it: Instead of repeating your previous answer to their repeated statement, try to reply in a different way. Possibly make some reference to the previous way (avoiding meta). Stopping the interlocutor from explaining If you did it: Shorter is better. Interruptions with a short point will be less disruptive than long interruptions. If they did it: Shorter is better. If you say stuff briefly, they won't have time to interrupt. Make your one argument, and then stop. If they stop you halfway through and goes on about another point, (politely) continue what you were saying. "That's a separate issue, but in regard to the original issue, the answer is so-and-so..." Assuming you know what the interlocutor's argument is If you did it:

 To avoid this: clarify by restating their position in your own words and ask if it's accurate. If they did it: Just contradict the assumption they think you're making. (But avoid all meta.) If you're not sure what assumption they're making, guess and contradict that. (It won't do any harm if you're wrong, because you're not saying "your false assumption is this...", you're just saying true stuff.)

Meta If you did it: How meta drives arguments into black holes: 1. Meta is off-topic. 2. Meta breeds meta. You can't contradict a meta statement without making another meta statement. 3. Meta engages emotions. Popper wants our ideas to die in our place. Meta wants to substitute us for our ideas, and less us die instead of them. Meta changes the focus from the substance of what's being argued to attributes of the speaker or the nature of the discussion. Substance of meta is bad, form of meta can be OK (though is dangerous). Substance: "You're only saying that because you're a communist." (Off-topic statement about the other person.) Form only: "I meant 'rationalism' as in the thing Popper advocates" (In form it's a statement about you, but in context a statement about what the argument meant.) If there's a danger of meta, instead of saying "I meant so-and-so", say "That meant so-and-so". If you think they're not going to answer properly, there may be a temptation to answer with meta to clarify. But don't. Resist, and stick to content. If they did it: Relentlessly stick to the content. Try asking a different question on the same topic, or ask in a different way, or change the topic. Be more specific when you ask. (This is similar to asking in a different way.)

Arguing definitions If you did it:

"Definitions must come after we have solved the problem, as a nice way of summing up the ideas used in our solution, but never we begin with them in order to gain knowledge." -Cyrus Ferdowsi Instead of worrying about defining a concept, focus on the actual content. What ideas are you discussing? Is the thing -- whatever you want to call it -- good or bad? What consequences does the idea have? etc. Try calling it by a different name. This forces you to drop worrying about the definitions and focus on the problem. If they did it: Again, focus on the problem. What are they asserting about reality? Get specific. Ask specific questions about the idea in question, and perhaps avoid using the word they're trying to define.

Equivocation Equivocation is when you use one word to mean two different things, and you flip between them thinking they're the same (and often dodge criticism this way). It can be hard to spot, both in yourself and others. When you've found out, it's relatively easy. To spot this: Equivocation tends to happen when you're not really engaging with what the argument is about, but are only engaging with the words. Religious people are especially prone to it, because they think words are sacred. To solve this: Don't say "You're just equivocating"! Meta bad bad. Just state what the differences between the two meanings of the same words are, and why that's relevant to the discussion. "Swedes in the sense of the vegetable are edible, but Swede in the sense of the nationality aren't."

Negative interpretations When you make a negative interpretation, you're thinking this isn't actually a discussion. ("You're only saying that because...") Positive interpretations are a way of taking ideas seriously. You should criticise a theory in its strongest possible form, not weakest form. You learn more by criticising theories that are hard refute than refuting obviously dumb theories. Losing the plot

Look out for when people have forgotten (but think they know) what the conversation is about. Warning sign: Using 'that' and 'it' a lot -- someone makes back references that you don't remember what they refer to. Solution: You will forget the context after 5-6 utterances (it's humanly impossible not to). So look out for it and remind yourself/the other person what the issue being discussed is.

Effective ways to argue:

Argue one point at a time Be brief Take their argument seriously Positive interpretations State what you think they're saying in your own words