 Have you ever seen a kid screaming for hours on end about something absurd? Well, a lot of internet arguments are just like that. Only instead of being limited by the need to breathe, only character counts and finger cramps can stop them. Hi, Internet. My name's Josh. Today, I'm going to try and show you how to argue effectively and efficiently. If you ever get frustrated by how some casual debates can spiral out of control, let me say some things. Maybe they'll help. First, it's important to recognize that what really drives and makes an argument important is differences in values. Values are just things that you care about and how much. They can be simple things like, I prefer Coke to Pepsi. Or they can be big, important-sounding ideals like freedom, duty, and compassion. That's important to remember because while we're generally smart enough to bear in mind that a die-hard Coke fan isn't going to be convinced to like Pepsi more, when a die-hard Freedom fan goes up against somebody who prefers compassion, there tends to be a lot more shouting. Values are what we argue about. How we argue, or how we ought to argue, is with logic. I say how we ought to argue because while it's easy to convince somebody that you're right by bullying them or charming them, logic allows you to convince them by making the most sense. It isn't just part of Spock's catchphrase either. Logic is an abstract system of rules, much like mathematics, that we can use to navigate from simple ideas to more complex ideas without getting lost. Simple logic can get really complex, and there are some links below if you want to learn how to use it more in depth, but today we're just going to look at something basic. A, therefore, B. You'll note that my B is a lot bigger than my A. This is because people tend to say what they think a lot louder than why they think it, and also because these are the size of flutters that I could find. A is your collection of facts and assumptions, the things that you and your audience can agree on. B, A is something like people should be healthy and pizza is unhealthy for you. Note that in almost every persuasive argument, your A's will generally contain some sort of value judgment, like people should be healthy. Watch for that. B is your conclusion, the more complicated idea that you get from your facts. Maybe B could be something like we should ban pizza. Therefore it's a little more complicated. You know what it means generally, but in the context of logical statements it means if you have A, then you always, always get B. Now, when someone states an opinion they generally use more words than this, but every argument can and should be broken down into simple logical statements like A, therefore, B. Most of the time in failed debates, the people arguing don't address these statements at all. Instead of establishing what is and isn't true, they generate tons of new statements with Q's and P's and not P's, trying to overwhelm their opponent with the sheer number of them. Pizza is delicious. You just haven't had the right pizza yet. You're some sort of pizza Nazi. If you're trying to argue logically, once you've broken down somebody's wall of text into individual logical statements, there are really only three things that you can disagree with in each. You can disagree with the A, the assumptions. This is usually the easiest thing to do. If pizza isn't actually unhealthy for you, then there's no reason to ban it. There might be a different reason to ban it with a different A, but the unhealthy argument would be null and void. Second, you can disagree with it therefore. If the A is actually unrelated to the B, or the B doesn't always always follow from the A, then the argument isn't valid. For example, if banning pizza wouldn't actually make people any healthier, if instead of having pizza they just ate more fries or something, then there's no reason to ban it. It's hard to challenge it therefore. This has to do with complicated things like causality being implied and invisible, but all you have to remember is that you have to construct any anti-therefore arguments as simply as you possibly can. You should aim for simplicity regardless, but if there is any ambiguity in an anti-therefore argument, your opponent is just going to ignore you. Finally, you can disagree with the B, the results. If you show that an opponent's conclusion conflicts with their own values, then they'll dismiss it themselves. Maybe pizza is bad for you, and maybe if we banned it, people would be healthier. But do you really want to live in a world without pizza? If you think about opinions as broken down logical statements, it becomes a lot easier to find the weak points in them and knock them over like giant jenga towers of words. Also, if you construct your own argument so that your A, therefore B is easy to see and talk about, then your opponents will tend not to disagree with you so much. Or if they do disagree, their disagreements will be more relevant and more structured. You'll also find that the only persistent disagreements that you get into are differences in values, which are a lot less frustrating. Oh, you think love is more important than health? That's cool. So last week, because it was my first video, and because it's apparently impossible to even search for it on YouTube, the only people that I spanned directly were able to comment on it, which I'm sort of fine with. Semi-IM thinks my puncture atrocious, which they are. C-13 thinks that I'm just trying to win more arguments on the internet, which I'm not. I'm trying to lose them. And Sigmund offers some valid skepticism that intelligent conversation on the internet could be a thing. We'll see. Next week, things are going to get heady with Cartesian dualism and consciousness. I've got some links below if you want to read up on it. Blah, blah, subscribe, blah, share, and I'll see you then.