By Steve Price
There exists in the world a growing dichotomy between the various cultural, political, religious and social camps; a divide that percolates with the energy of a fiery sun threatening to go nova on those poor sods caught in the middle. Whether betwixt members of different political classes, social conventions or other nomenclature of differentiation, the discourse between people in the world, particularly in the West has never been more intense and, dare we suggest, toxic. The utilization of proper apologetics in defending the position of oneself has all but fallen by the wayside, replaced with ad hominem attacks on character and their person. The fire of discontent rages throughout North America and Western Europe as various groups continually clash over ideas with increasing frequency, and increasing vitriol to boot.
Walking through these difficult times and navigating the lanes of potential offense can prove burdensome for even the most versed in sociopolitical rhetoric. For the average person who seeks only to go about their day in relative peace, the modern times could feel like an abridged version of their own personal Hell, caught between the furies of the masses on either side of centrality. Such devastating rhetoric and hostility only seeks to further the cause of exhibiting decorum when navigating these channels, to say nothing of the need to remain civil when actually debating or utilizing apologetics discourse to defend your position.
Apologetics, derived from the Greek word apologia (meaning ‘defense’) descends from a literary and religious tradition whereby scholars and theologians would utilize knowledge and tactful discernment to defend the position of an idea in the midst of debate or discussion. To engage in apologetics is to argue a position or creed in the face of opposition, either literal in the case of a direct argument or figurative in the case of a position piece or testimony. The learned nature of master apologists lent them credibility when debating positions of philosophy or religion. And it is from this example that we seek to instill in readers a virtue in the modern age, where chaos often has lease.
Well-Sewn.com is a site devoted to helping make people a connoisseur in all things, this much is evident by our branding and our mission statement. That push towards helping people lead their best lives extends beyond culinary or fashion choices, into helping people think about their lives in new and improved ways. Learning how to navigate the fiery discourse in these partisan times is just one method of learning to improve oneself in a significant manner. To illustrate this point, there are three crucial elements of apologetics that lend decorum to debate and discussion that everyone should know about. These three principles will help guide you through the challenges of differing opinions with others like a champion.
Never argue out of fear. Those who get into debates should never enter into discussion without the confidence in their ability to navigate any challenges that may fall their direction. Arguing out of fear will not only exhibit a lack of confidence to others, but it will undermine the very visage of confidence one has in their own opinions and positions. If one cannot argue from confidence in their convictions, one should refrain from arguing at all, because to do so would be to invite attacks of opportunity that could lead to a breakdown in communication for all parties. Having the fortitude to argue with stoic conviction requires adherence to the other two principles we seek to illuminate.
Never argue out of ignorance. Nothing reeks of desperation worse than someone who attempts to debate someone without ample knowledge of that which they are debating. To assail someone without facts to back up your claims reduces your apologetic oratory into the proverbial word salad that learned people loathe. If you feel compelled to take a position on an issue, however you fall on the principle you should take the time to learn about that which you speak. One would argue that you should spend as much time learning about the opinions and positions of those who would disagree with you as those opinions you hold to. Arguing with the foreknowledge of your opponent’s tactics can be a great way to solidify your own case to be made.
Never argue out of hatred. Of the three principles to adhere to in effecting decorum, arguing from a place of hatred or dislike is the critical component. This is not to say that one cannot dislike the opposing viewpoint in a contentious debate; such is human nature, after all. However, if one succumbs to that anger and vitriol and unleashes it on other persons during a debate, all you have managed to do is drive a wedge further between individuals and render the entire point of debate and discussion moot. Calmly explaining oneself in a contentious debate carries more weight than arguing outright, where ad hominem attacks and fallacious rhetoric abide. It amplifies manners and civil behavior in an uncivil age.
