5 Asinine Ways to NOT Win an Argument

If social media is one big conversation, then persuasion is one key to propelling that conversation forward.  If nobody ever agrees on anything, we’ll never move beyond the same presumptions we began with, and our present state will never change — at least not on purpose.

Yet, having witnessed just how ineffective people actually are at persuading others to see things from their point of view, it’s no wonder that social media (with its added crutch of anonymity) too often descends into a shouting match between choirs.

You’re Never Too Small to Be Petty

Last month, my girlfriend Ann and I attended a neighborhood meeting of dog-walkers (and their opponents) to discuss the viability of an off-leash area in Baltimore’s Patterson Park.  (Having previously lived five minutes away from the sizable off-leash area in Pittsburgh’s Frick Park, we continue to be baffled by Baltimore’s comparative dog-unfriendliness; the Patterson Park OLA debate has evidently been raging for years.)

The meeting consisted of about 40 people, 80% of whom (I estimate) were either dog owners or dog-walkers.  (This makes sense, since that’s group who’s trying to effect change; their opponents merely need to rely on the inertia of the status quo, which requires considerably less effort.)

And yet, despite this being a meeting to discuss the viability (or not) of a dozen sites specified as possible locations for the OLA, proponents of the action wound up having to once again defend the merit of the idea itself, as the minority of anti-OLA participants dismissed site after site for one reason or another.  Their logic (or lack thereof) is specific to this debate, but each tactic can be applied to other, broader arguments about anything you so desire.  For example:

• Insist that “most people” would also see things your way. Initial objections to most proposed OLA sites included complaints that “people living near the park don’t want to look at that,” “people take their kids to the park,” “this will ruin the parking situation,” and “dogs smell, and I shouldn’t have to smell that.”  As one woman on the pro-OLA side said, the bulk of these objections made her feel as though she was requesting permission to do something immoral.
• Overplay the fear factor. Since kids walk through the park at all hours of the day, and since kids have a tendency to get mauled by dogs, the argument proceeded that the off-leash area shouldn’t be open during any time that kids could possibly be in the park.  Also, the OLA should in no way border the children’s fenced-in play area, because… well, it was never specified.  Presumably, either the dogs would leap over the fence and eat the kids, or the kids would tunnel under the fence to be eaten by the dogs.  Either way, dogs are savages.
• Find the common ground (from which you can make your opponent look bad). One woman who continually objected to the entire OLA proposal became the target of complaints and derision from the pro-OLA majority, so she decided to set the record straight.  Her reasoning could be paraphrased as follows: “I also happen to be a dog owner, but before I got my dog, I took the time to research which breeds would be right for me.  Those of you who knowingly bought or adopted dogs that you now say need more exercise than you can provide for them in your apartment, or with your work schedule, should have been more responsible in selecting your dog because you knew the rules beforehand.”  (Or, as I interpreted her: Things are the way they are, so stop making us adapt to your needs.)
• When in doubt, marginalize your opponent as “the other.” In this case, the 7 or 8 people who vehemently oppose the creation of an off-leash area insisted that dog-walkers were “a very small minority” of the park’s overall userbase, and therefore the larger majority of users shouldn’t have to disrupt their routines to accommodate the minority’s whims.  This, despite a study referenced at the meeting that showed dog-walkers are actually one of the largest user groups of the park.  (Remember: evidence is only evidence until someone calls it a lie; then it immediately becomes irrelevant.)
• Make Concessions Based Upon the Presumption That the Worst-Case Scenario Is Inevitable. Among the many elements debated, one of the most interesting was the possible hours for the off-leash area.  As mentioned above, having dogs off-leash (even in a fenced-in area) while kids are in the park was a concern, but so was the noise factor of barking, the potential disruption to the established routines of morning and evening joggers, and numerous other ways dogs could conceivably wreak havoc on America.  In the end, the anti-OLA minority decided that it would be best to only allow the OLA to be accessed at night, in the dark, preferably between 9 and 11 PM, and not at all during the summer.  (As the aforementioned “also happen to be a dog owner” explained, “You’re asking for the off-leash area to be open for four hours in the morning and four hours in the evening?  I don’t think anyone owns a dog that needs to play outside for eight hours every day.”)

And if All Else Fails, Remember: Compromise Is for Suckers

Keep in mind that Patterson Park currently consists of 137 acres, or 5,967,720 square feet.  Of that, current proposals for an off-leash area request space between 10,000 and 20,000 square feet.  That’s a maximum of 0.3 percent of the park’s total acreage — yet opponents of the action claim that’s still too much for them to sacrifice.  (If we’re looking to keep things strictly fair, I’m not sure what percentage of the park’s users are dog-walkers, but I’d wager it’s larger than 0.3 percent.)

Lesson learned: when it comes to self-interest, common sense goes out the window.  (Also: if setting aside park space for an off-leash area is this contentious, I can only imagine what the people debating health care, gay marriage or Afghanistan are putting up with…)

Tags: baltimore, dogs, perception, Sociology