How to Argue With Someone You Think Is Wrong
The game theorist Anatol Rapoport set out four rules for criticising somebody else's position. The philosopher Daniel Dennett later popularised them, and what makes them memorable is the ordering.
First, restate the other person's position so clearly and fairly that they say they wish they had put it that way. Second, list anything you have learned from them. Third, mention every point of agreement. Only then are you allowed to say a word of criticism.
Three of the four rules happen before the disagreement. In most arguments a student witnesses - and most they see online - all three are skipped entirely.
This is not about being nice
It is worth being clear, because the rules sound like politeness advice and they are not. They are a method for winning arguments that actually matter.
Attacking a weak version of somebody's view - the straw man - is easy and convinces nobody who held the view in the first place. Defeating the strongest version, the one its best defender would recognise, is the only kind of victory that changes minds. It also protects you from the more embarrassing outcome: discovering three years later that the position you dismissed was right.
Why the first rule is so hard
Restating a view you disagree with, well enough that its holder is satisfied, requires understanding it - and understanding it means holding it in your head without the protective layer of contempt. That is uncomfortable, and the discomfort is the reason people skip to the criticism.
It is also the exact skill a policy room demands. In a body with no vote, you cannot win by counting - you have to find language your opponent can sign, and you cannot do that without knowing which part of their position is load-bearing. We wrote about that in why consensus is harder than voting.
How to practise it this week
Take a view you find obviously wrong. Write the best one-paragraph case for it you can manage.
Show it to somebody who holds that view and ask whether it is fair. Their edits are the interesting part.
Only now write your objection. Notice how much it changed.
Students often expect this to make them less decisive. It tends to do the opposite. Once you have genuinely understood the best version of the other side and still disagree, you hold your position with far more confidence - because you now know what it is actually standing against.
Rooms built around this are Model G20 and Model NITI Aayog. Dates are on Upcoming Programs.