该怎样友好地辩论，而不是“一言不合就动手”

If the 2016 presidential election has shown us anything, it’s that it sometimes seems as if opposing views can never be reconciled.

如果2016年的总统选举证明了什么的话，那就是有时候相左的观点似乎永远不可调和。

In the days since Donald J. Trump has been elected president, thousands of angry people have protested in at least 52 cities across the United States. At a Brooklyn restaurant, a male Trump supporter punched a female supporter of Hillary Clinton’s after they argued about politics, The Daily News reported.

唐纳德·J·特朗普(Donald J. Trump)当选总统后的这几天里，在全美至少52个城市，成千上万愤怒的民众举行了抗议。《每日新闻》(The Daily News)报道，在布鲁克林一家餐厅，特朗普的一名男性支持者在和希拉里·克林顿(Hillary Clinton)的一名女性支持者就政见展开辩论后，对其大打出手。

And it’s clear that American Thanksgiving gatherings are sure to be interesting affairs this year, as families split between Trump and Clinton supporters try to sit down to dinner without maiming one another — if they show up at all.

随着分裂成特朗普和克林顿两个阵营的家人，试图在不把对方打成残废的情况下坐在一起吃饭，今年美国的感恩节聚会显然会很有意思——如果他们都参加聚会的话。

So this may be a good time to explore what psychologists and philosophers say are the most effective ways to argue. And by “argue” they do not mean “quarrel,” but communicate without rancor or faulty reasoning with someone who has an opposing viewpoint, with the hope of broadening one’s understanding of people and ideas.

因此，现在大概是探索心理学家和哲学家所说的最有效辩论方式的好时机。他们所说的“辩论”不是“争吵”的意思，而是在不带敌意，不进行错误推理的情况下，与持相反观点的人交流，希望拓宽自己对人和理念的理解。

Here are a few suggestions:

下面是一些建议：

Listen Carefully

认真聆听

The aim of an argument should not be proving who is right, but conveying that you care about the issues, said Amy J. C. Cuddy, a social psychologist and associate professor at Harvard University.

哈佛大学社会心理学家、副教授艾米·J·C·卡迪(Amy J. C. Cuddy)说，辩论的目的不应是证明谁是对的，而是传递出你关心相关问题这个信息。

Show the person with whom you are speaking that you care about what he or she says.

向和你交谈的人表明你在乎他或她的话。

The goal should be to state your views and to hear theirs. It should not be: “I am not leaving until you admit that you are wrong, or here is what I believe, and I am not budging from this,” said Dr. Cuddy, who has explored the question in Business Insider columns.

辩论的目的应该是阐明自己的观点，并听取他人的观点。不应该是：“你不承认你错了我就不走，或这就是我的观点，我不会退让的，”卡迪说。她在Business Insider的专栏中探讨过这个问题。

And when you listen, go all in. “Don’t half-listen while figuring out what you’re going to say next,” said Gary Gutting, a philosopher at Notre Dame.

听的时候，要全身心投入。“不要一边似听非听一边考虑自己接下来说什么，”圣母大学(Notre Dame)哲学家加里·古廷(Gary Gutting)说。

Don’t ‘Drop the Anchor’

不要“抛锚”

Some people start an argument by staking their position and refusing to budge, an impulse that Dr. Cuddy called “dropping the anchor.”

一些人辩论一开始就表明自己的立场，拒绝让步。卡迪把这种冲动叫“抛锚”。

Instead, try to understand the other person’s point of view; it does not mean you have to agree with him or her, or that you are abandoning deeply felt objections to, for example, racism or sexism, she said.

她说，相反，要试着去理解对方的观点;并不是说你必须同意他或她的观点，或是放弃你深信不疑的反对立场，比如对种族主义或性别歧视的反对。

“Think of it from a courage perspective: I can go in and I am going to ask questions that are truly, honestly aimed at increasing my understanding of where he or she is coming from,” Dr. Cuddy said. “How did they get there, and what is leading to that?”

“从勇气的角度来想：我可以发起攻势，会问一些问题，它们真的会切实加强我对他或她为何有这种想法的了解，”卡迪说。“他们怎么会得出这样的观点，背后的原因是什么?”

Mind Your Body Language

注意肢体语言

Your body language can send messages that are more compelling than the words coming out of your mouth.

你的肢体语言传递出来的信息，可能比从你嘴里说出来的话更有说服力。

Try to avoid gestures that are patronizing or defensive, like crossing your arms or clenching your jaw.

尽量避免屈尊俯就或防御性的动作，如抱臂或紧闭牙关。

Maintain eye contact in a way that is not a stare-down.

保持眼神交流，但不要死死盯着对方。

Lean forward slightly to show you are interested.

身体微微前倾，表示你很感兴趣。

And no eye-rolling, Dr. Gutting said.

古廷还说，不要翻白眼。

Don’t Argue to Win

不要一心求胜

Dr. Gutting says it helps to use neutral or charitable language when acknowledging opposing viewpoints, especially during arguments over politics. It lays the groundwork for a more effective argument on points of genuine weakness.

古廷说，在承认反方观点时使用中性或宽容的语言会起到帮助作用，尤其是在围绕政治展开的辩论中。以此为基础可以就一些真正薄弱的观点展开更有效的辩论。

Don’t think of an argument as an opportunity to convince the other person of your view; think of it as a way totest and improve your opinions, and to gain a better understanding of the other side.

不要把辩论当成一个说服对方相信自己的观点的机会，把它看成一种考验和改进自己的观点，同时更好地了解对方的方式。

It is rarely productive to nitpick errors in your interlocutor’s remarks or to argue just to “win.”

对对方言语间的错误吹毛求疵，或是只是为了“获胜”而辩论，往往是没什么意义的。

“People do give up views because of rational arguments against them,” Dr. Gutting said in the interview. “But this is almost always a long process, not the outcome of a single decisive encounter.”

“人们的确会因为对方的理性论点而放弃自己的观点，”古廷在接受采访时说。“但这几乎永远都是一个漫长的过程，不是一场决定性的辩论就能带来的结果。”

In his book “How to Argue About Politics,” Dr. Gutting writes that, in many political arguments, the people we think we “convince” almost always already agree with us. 在《如何辩论政治问题》(How to Argue About Politics)一书中，古廷写道，在很多政治辩论中，我们自认为能“说服”的人，几乎总是已经准备好同意我们的观点。

Know the Facts

了解事实

A good argument is supported by evidence, but that is just a starting point. Sometimes, especially with political back-and-forths, one side will look only at evidence supporting its own position, conveniently leaving out the full picture, Dr. Gutting noted.

一场精彩的辩论需要有证据的支撑，但这只是起点。古廷指出，有时候，特别是在政治交锋中，一方会只关注支持己方立场的证据，对事情的全貌假装看不见。

(This is called the fallacy of incomplete evidence. Here is an extensive list of fallacies, or unsound reasoning.)

(这种情况被称作证据不完整谬误。点击此处查看一份有关谬误或者说错误推理的列表。)

“An effective argument would have to take account of all the relevant evidence,” he said. “一场有效的辩论必须考虑到所有相关证据，”他说。

Speak and Listen Fearlessly

大胆表达和聆听

George Yancy, a philosophy professor at Emory University who has written extensively about race, was asked by a student this year why he even bothered to discuss race with white supremacists.

埃默里大学(Emory University)的哲学教授乔治·扬希(George Yancy)撰写了大量有关种族问题的文章。今年，一名学生问他为什么还要费心和白人至上主义者讨论种族问题。

Dr. Yancy said he told his student there was a need to inform white people about how African-Americans think about race.

扬希对他的学生说，有必要让白人知道，非裔美国人是怎么看待种族问题的。

“This is a moment when we are not just talking past each other, but against each other,” Dr. Yancy said in a telephone interview, speaking about the current national climate.

“此刻，我们不仅各执一词，还争锋相对，”扬希在电话采访中谈及美国当前的气氛时说。

“So for me, the condition for a conversation has to be that you are unafraid to speak courageously, and you are unafraid to tell your partner exactly what it is that you think about the world.”

“因此对我来说，交谈的条件是你必须不怕勇敢地发言，不害怕告诉同伴你对这个世界的看法究竟是什么。”

But a two-way argument also requires fearless listening, “even if it is me talking to a white supremacist who is trying to tell me that I am inferior,” he added. “One of the conditions for the possibility of a fruitful argument is to allow for some kind of opening up in myself to hear.”

但双向的辩论还要求勇敢地聆听，“哪怕此刻我面前是一个白人至上主义者，正试图告诉我，我是低他一等的，”他接着说。“要想展开富有成效的讨论，其中一个条件是我自己在某种程度上对外开放，倾听对方的观点。”

Sometimes it takes a painful step to find common ground, Dr. Yancy said.

扬希说，有时候要迈出痛苦的一步，才能找到共同点。

“What you need to be able to do is to speak the same language,” he said. “They believe in God, and you would say: ‘You and I believe the same thing. How is it that this God who loves you can’t possibly love me?’ Is it possible that we can agree to disagree on some issues?”

“你需要具备的能力是采用同样的语言，”他说。“他们信仰上帝，那么你可以说：‘你我有相同的信仰。这位上帝爱你，怎么可能不爱我呢?’我们有没有可能在一些问题上求同存异?”