Introduction
The anti-war movement is a lose organization of people dedicated to spreading the anti-war message. We do this is by honestly and rationally attacking pro-war arguments in order to show that the war is unjustifiable. The end goal is to convince people to change their world views, a process to which people will be naturally resistant. As such, it is necessary that each of us be informed enough to articulate a persuasive response to pro-war arguments.
Here are a few of the questions that everyone should feel comfortable answering:
1) Why are you anti-war?
2) Wasn’t the war in Afghanistan a success?
3) Isn’t freedom in (insert target of the war) being restored?
4) Isn’t America acting as a positive force in the world?
5) Isn’t there a world coalition, and doesn’t that justify America’s position?
6) Ninety percent of Americans support the war, even (insert name of prominent liberal). Can they all be wrong?
7) How do you propose to rid the world of terrorism without a war?
It is the responsibility of the anti-war movement to insure that its “members” are educated enough to defend their position. Because we are still a small movement, to a certain degree each of us needs to feel responsible to spread the message whenever they are comfortable — the goal is to increase the amount of time that you feel comfortable doing it.
General tips for the presentation of arguments
Gauging the audience
The first step of an argument is to quickly estimate the level of knowledge about the situation that the person you are speaking with has. If they are relatively informed then you should be careful not to insult their intelligence by using arguments that are more rhetorical than factual. For instance, instead of saying generalities about civilian causalities you can talk about the specifics by placing the discussion of causalities in reference to the clearly unethical use of cluster bombs or daisy cutters. You can also reference the level of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and compare it to similar past situations such as in Yugoslavia (where we actually killed fewer civilians). The point is that being “informed” and still being pro-war really means that they have immersed themselves in the rhetoric and arguments on the pro-war side. It is your job to show them that there is an equal depth, and a more thoughtful interpretation, articulated in the anti-war/peace movement.
If you are talking to someone who is relatively uninformed than you should not ask them to justify specific policies they likely do not know much about. Doing this will probably make them feel unintelligent or they’ll be put on the defensive. Instead, the fact that they are uninformed should be the basis of the argument. Take the blame of being uninformed about the war off of their shoulders by placing it on the relative media silence about real issues in this war. Encourage them to learn more by citing interesting facts they are not aware of. Then point them to places where they can learn more (why-war.com, antiwar.com, counterpunch.org, etc.)
Confidence
Persuasion is as much about confidence as about anything else. It is all right not to know the answer to a question, but it is not good to appear as if that question has never occurred to you — or that you worry the question might challenge your position. You must have confidence in your ideas if you expect others to trust you! In many ways confidence comes first through pretending that you are sure of yourself, then realizing (after talking to people) that you are by the very nature of taking the initiative to work for the anti-war movement more informed than most of America. Pretending is not lying but it is acting. Confidence will only come when you have spoken to enough people to begin to expect their arguments.
Don’t get angry!
There are people who will try to get a rise out of you. Unfortunately, once you’re flustered the argument is essentially over — and it is surprising how many arguments are won by people who do nothing other than try to make the other person angry or inarticulate. If someone is being offensive your only recourse is to win the argument through being calm. The good thing is that people who win arguments through being offensive likely do not have well-articulated reasons for their position.
Be honest
Ultimately your goal in an argument is to be a trusted source of information so that you can be convincing. Therefore it is always better to err on the side of understatement and to avoid statements that can be construed as exaggeration. If you have memorized a particularly surprising fact (such as that the new interim government of Afghanistan is going to reinstate Islamic laws like the chopping off of hands, etc.) be sure that you have also memorized the source (the Associated Press reported the previous fact).
If you don’t know the answers to a question then say so. Tell them that you will find out the answer and then do so. You do not have to be all-knowing in order to be persuasive, but you do need to be honest about what you do and do not know.
Be nice
You never know who is going to become a truly active member of the peace movement, so you should do your best to be respectful and nice to anyone you have a discussion with — no matter their political position. People are not themselves morally condemnable just because their arguments are. Instead, most people hold beliefs that they think are moral and just.