Disagreeing Well: How to Debate Without Losing the Plot—or Your Humanity

Disagree, we must.

Disagreement is one of the most human things we do. It reflects the richness of our perspectives, the diversity of our experiences, and the complexity of our world. Yet, in practice, disagreement often devolves into misunderstanding, personal attacks, and futile arguments. Why? Because we lose sight of what disagreement truly is—and why it matters.

This essay offers a guide to the art of disagreement, focusing on its meaning and value, the importance of maintaining clarity about the actual point of contention, and practical strategies for engaging constructively. Drawing on concepts like steelmanning and the principle of charity, this guide aims to help you navigate disagreements in ways that build understanding and foster connection.

Why Disagree? The Meaning and Purpose of Disagreement

At its core, disagreement is a recognition of difference—a gap between perspectives, beliefs, or values. It’s not inherently hostile or harmful. In fact, disagreement is often the engine of growth, whether in personal relationships, science, or society. But to engage meaningfully in disagreement, we must first confront a foundational question: what does it mean to disagree?

To disagree does not mean to reject the other person as a whole. It does not mean they are evil, irrational, or irredeemable. Too often, we equate someone’s position with their character, treating disagreements as personal indictments. This is a mistake. A person can hold views that are wrong, ill-formed, or even irrational, and it does not follow that they are fundamentally flawed or malevolent.

Disagreement matters because it allows us to refine our ideas, test our assumptions, and expand our understanding. It’s a mirror held up to our beliefs, challenging us to think more deeply. But this only works if we approach disagreement with humility and a commitment to seeing the other person as a partner in inquiry, not an adversary to defeat.

Before we dive into strategies for better disagreement, let us establish one simple rule: disagreement should not escalate into the rejection of the person. If you leave this essay with only one idea, let it be this: you can reject a position without rejecting the person who holds it.

Keeping the Frame: Staying Focused on the Disagreement

One of the most common pitfalls in disagreement is losing sight of the original point of contention. A discussion about a specific issue—say, climate change policy—can quickly spiral into unrelated territory: personal anecdotes, tangential points, or grievances about entirely different topics. Before long, the conversation is no longer about climate change but about who respects whom or whose worldview is superior. The disagreement has dissolved into chaos.

To avoid this, it is crucial to keep the “frame” of the disagreement intact. The frame refers to the boundaries of the discussion: what is at stake, what is being debated, and what is not. Losing the frame turns disagreement into an exercise in frustration and futility.

How to Maintain the Frame

1. State the Disagreement Clearly: Begin by explicitly articulating the point of contention. For example: “We’re discussing whether a carbon tax is the best way to reduce emissions.”

2. Revisit the Frame Regularly: If the conversation starts drifting, gently steer it back: “I think we’ve moved away from our original question. Let’s return to whether a carbon tax is effective.”

3. Identify Ancillary Issues: Recognise when new topics emerge and decide whether they are relevant or should be set aside for another discussion.

4. Separate the Person from the Position: Keep the focus on the issue, not the individual. Say: “Let’s focus on your argument about the tax,” rather than, “You’re being unreasonable.”

By keeping the frame intact, you ensure that the disagreement remains productive and anchored in its original purpose.

Steelmanning: Strengthening the Opposition

Once the frame is established, engaging in disagreement requires respect and intellectual generosity. Steelmanning—the practice of presenting your opponent’s argument in its strongest possible form—is one of the most effective tools for this.

Steelmanning forces you to truly listen and understand the other person’s position. It prevents you from dismissing their views prematurely and helps foster goodwill. Most importantly, it ensures that the disagreement addresses the best version of the opposing argument, not a weakened caricature.

How to Steelman

1. Listen Without Interrupting: Let your interlocutor articulate their argument fully before responding.

2. Reframe Their Argument Charitably: Restate their position in your own words, improving clarity and addressing any apparent weaknesses.

3. Ask for Confirmation: Check whether your rephrased version accurately captures their view: “Is this what you mean?”

4. Engage Respectfully: Respond to the strongest version of their argument, acknowledging its merits before presenting your critique.

Steelmanning not only elevates the quality of the conversation but also builds trust. When people feel heard and respected, they are more likely to engage constructively.

The Principle of Charity: Interpreting Generously

Closely related to steelmanning, Donald Davidson’s principle of charity urges us to interpret others’ arguments in the most rational and coherent way possible. This approach guards against the temptation to dismiss opposing views as absurd or irrational simply because they differ from our own.

How to Practice the Principle of Charity

1. Assume Rationality: Begin with the premise that the other person’s position is based on some form of reasoning, even if it is unfamiliar to you.

2. Seek Coherence: Look for the internal logic of their argument, rather than focusing on minor inconsistencies or missteps.

3. Clarify Before Critiquing: Ask questions to ensure you fully understand their perspective before offering your counterarguments.

4. Empathise: Try to see the world from their point of view. What values or experiences might underlie their position?

The principle of charity fosters mutual understanding and prevents the escalation of disagreement into hostility. It also reminds us that our own perspectives are not infallible, encouraging intellectual humility.

Practical Application: A Framework for Disagreement

To bring these ideas together, here is a step-by-step framework for constructive disagreement:

1. Define the Disagreement: Clearly articulate what is being debated and ensure all participants understand the frame.

2. Stay Focused: Revisit the original question or issue if the conversation drifts.

3. Listen and Steelman: Restate the other person’s argument in its strongest form and seek confirmation before responding.

4. Interpret Charitably: Assume rationality and seek coherence in the other person’s position, even if you disagree with it.

5. Engage Respectfully: Respond to the argument, not the person. Avoid personal attacks or condescension.

6. Reflect on the Purpose: Ask yourself: is this disagreement about seeking truth, persuading, or simply understanding? Let the purpose guide your approach.

Conclusion: Disagreement as a Moral Practice

Disagreement is not just an intellectual exercise; it is a moral practice. It requires humility, respect, and a commitment to the dignity of others. When done well, disagreement can deepen our understanding, sharpen our thinking, and bring us closer to truth.

But disagreement also requires discipline. Keeping the frame intact, steelmanning the opposition, and practising the principle of charity are not just techniques—they are habits of mind that cultivate better conversations and stronger relationships.

In a world often divided by polarisation and misunderstanding, the art of disagreement offers a path forward. It reminds us that to disagree well is not to reject others but to engage with them meaningfully. Through disagreement, we honour the richness of human thought and the shared pursuit of understanding that unites us all.