How to make and win a moral argument

    The method of moral argumentation is called "arguing to 100," and it works particularly well when trying to "frame a debate" with you having the moral high ground. It works like this:

1) Define a clear, strong position you want to move toward. This is 100.

2) Define a horrifying, opposite outcome. This is -100.

3) Even if your 100 is outrageous, you make that case for 100 constantly. People who are afraid of the 100 might still be OK with 20, and if you get 20 they might feel comfortable with 30, etc.

Examples

Here are a few recent examples, to help understand what this looks like:

Donald Trump

100 is a "great" America, with proud families supported by a great economy. The envy of the world!

-100 is a decaying waste of a society, something like Detroit. All the jobs have been hollowed out and sold off, nobody is safe, and everyone is destitute.

AOC

100 is the "equal" and "safe" society. You don't need to worry about an emergency or big expense ruining you, all of your basic needs are taken care of! And this will be done by "morally" making everyone contribute back their "fair share."

-100 is a corporate theftocracy, where the rich are squeezing every last penny from everybody.

Actual libertarians

    Recently I've met some true libertarians, unlike the jokers running the official party. They have been very effectively creating the following narrative while performing park cleanups during the government shutdown:

100 is "We Will." We will clean up the parks. We will build the roads. We will provide the education. We will not be treated like children to be led around by abusive politicians.

-100 is the state theftocracy, where the state and its chosen institutions openly rob the public, while at the same time saying "you are worthless, you can't take care of yourself, you must depend on me." Much like an abusive boyfriend who is spending his girlfriend's money in between smacking her around over perceived slight.

Why this works

    This kind of argumentation works because it provides a very clear vision, and a direction to go. It shows who is the hero and who is the enemy. Its leader is the proverbial knight in shining armor, with a vision, a plan to get there, and never mind the details because we are ON THE MOVE.

Arguing from 0

    Now, let's look at a kind of argumentation that doesn't work - arguing from 0. Above, we saw both a clear 100 and -100. 0, by extension, is to do nothing, and stick with the status quo. Near-zero arguments amount to tweaking the status quo. This argument fails first because it is based on fear, and second because it provides no solutions, and no plan of action. This kind of argumentation makes you look like the naysayer who says "it'll never work!" to everything.

    Even if it is true that "AOC doesn't know economics," or that "Trump's wall won't work!" neither of these truths matter because either politician's supporters aren't concerned with that. Instead, each group is upset, angry, or afraid over something, and by taking those emotions and distilling them into a symbol, like "The Wall," a MAGA Hat, or "The Green New Deal," a politician can speak to those emotions, and give their supporters a feeling of peace because "I have heard you and I am doing something about it." Opponents unintentionally brand themselves as milquetoast quislings who say "but I read this book by nobody you ever heard of and it says such and such!"

If we want freedom

    I will not hide the fact that I am a staunch libertarian. Something I've seen to often in my movement, and something I myself am guilty of, is to rely too heavily on books and intellect when talking to people who are angry or afraid. It's the wrong solution to the problem. I can also see the same problem with people who haven't yet bought into my "ism," who can argue all day about corruption in high places. They unwittingly come off as the kind of person who merely attacks everyone they perceive as more successful than themselves, which is why we are gaining no traction.

    Fortunately, there are some things we can change to build more momentum in the direction of freedom, and away from the exploitative globalism that drew so many of us to Minds:

 > Don't think of ourselves as anti-Facebook or anti-MSM (i.e. turning a -100 into a 0), but instead as the embodiment of a future of free people (moving from -100 to 100)

 > Use Minds and any other platform as a place to talk about solutions for which you will personally take actions to accomplish. Define and live your 100.

> Think in terms of shifting the narrative from "Here's how you were lied to" (-100 to 0) to "Yes, you were lied to, but here's the truth and it's going to make your life so much better." (-100 to 100)

> Replace "We need to stop X" (-100 to 0) with "Lets replace X with Y" (-100 to 100).

> Actively develop and move toward a clear, bold, and desirable future.

Thanks for reading. Glad to be a part of Minds.