Over the Holiday Season, Engage AI ChatGPT in Debates with Your Most Controversial Conversation Partners

Over the Festive Season, Engage Generative AI ChatGPT in Debates with Your Most Tenaciously Controversial Contacts

Today's discussion dives into the vexing issue of overly argumentative individuals. You've likely encountered such individuals, who will breeze into an argument without a second thought, even when an argument isn't necessary. They have a special talent for turning the most mundane and uncontentious topics into heated, lengthy, and exhausting debates.

But there's a twist to this tale, my dear reader.

One method to potentially handle highly argumentative individuals is to have them argue with AI. Yes, you heard it right. Encourage them to argue with AI. You'll soon see that there are numerous advantages to aiming their argumentative tendencies at AI. It might tire them out, reduce their argumentative fervor, and even help them realize the excessive nature of their arguments.

This analysis of an intriguing suggestion is part of my ongoing Our Website column, which covers the latest in AI, identifying and explaining various complex AI issues (see the linked article here). Additionally, for my complete analysis of how AI is being used in medical and healthcare fields, such as mental health guidance, cognitive therapy, and overall, mind-enhancing care, see the linked article here.

Some Individuals Can Be Eristic

There's a fancy term for someone who enjoys arguing a lot. That term is "eristic," which comes from the Greek word "eris," which means a hint of strife or discord. An eristic individual doesn't simply enjoy arguing; they actively seek it out. Rather than arguing for practical, above-board reasons, they argue persistently solely for the sake of arguing.

Have you met someone like this?

I bet you have.

A valid question is why someone would consistently take an inflexible stance on always needing to argue. This behavior may annoy others. The arguer may alienate loved ones, friends, and even strangers. They undoubtedly expend extra energy and zeal to conjure arguments out of thin air.

There should be some motivation behind this behavior.

Here are the top ten reasons why someone might frequently engage in arguments, even about trivial matters:

(1) Desire for control
(2) Insecurity or low self-esteem
(3) Intellectual stimulation
(4) Habitual behavior
(5) Perfectionism
(6) Underlying stress or anxieties
(7) Personality traits
(8) Lack of socio-emotional awareness
(9) Cultural or upbringing factors
(10) Seeking to be the center of attention

Remember these motivators when interacting with an eristic. One or more of these factors might serve as the root cause of their behavior. If you can pinpoint their motivations, it will likely give you an advantage in dealing with their argumentative ways.

Characteristics of Eristic Behavior

Going beyond motivation, let's consider what an eristic tends to do while either provoking, extending, or fostering arguments.

Their approach is likely to consist of these five characteristics:

(1) Firmly dedicated to victory: A highly argumentative person typically has an unwavering goal to forcefully "win" the argument instead of resolving issues or finding common ground.
(2) Often relies on fallaciousness: A highly argumentative person is inclined to use clever yet subtly deceptive reasoning to confuse or outsmart whomever they are arguing with.
(3) Prone to spontaneous opposition: A highly argumentative person will frequently take opposing views purely for the sake of disagreement, regardless of their personal beliefs.
(4) Delight in provoking others: A highly argumentative person will intentionally provoke others to gleefully elicit a strong reaction or create undue argumentation.
(5) Radically opposed to amicable resolution: A highly argumentative person will often have little interest in any form of reasoned compromise or finding a mutually collaborative means of resolving the matter at hand.

These points highlight that the crux of an eristic is that they view arguing as a type of skirmish or confrontation. In their mind, they are determined to come out on top in the verbal brawl. Winning is of the utmost importance. They must win. If their argued position wanes or falters, this is a significant setback and a crushing blow to their ego and self-esteem.

Since winning the argument is so significant, they are willing to resort to deceptive means if that's the only way to emerge victorious. I use the term "opponent" in quotes because the person they are arguing with might be a dearest friend. It doesn't matter to the eristic whether they are arguing with a friend or foe. The main concern is argumentation. Engaging in argumentation applies to everyone, regardless of their relationship to the eristic.

There is an unusual facet to this phenomenon that often surprises people.

Here it is.

The eristic will likely find a way to instigate an argument even when the argued position they adopt is not at all their supposed true stance. For example, an eristic might genuinely believe that Picasso's paintings are terrible, silly, and utterly without merit. They encounter someone who shares a similar view. All of a sudden, the eristic might instantly argue that Picasso is the undisputed master of painting. They will then challenge any opposing view. Anyone familiar with the prior stance of the eristic will likely find themselves perplexed by this sudden turn of events.

That's what life is like when you're up close and personal with an argumentative individual, often known as an eristic.

Engage an Eristic with Generative AI

Need a change of pace? Let's introduce generative AI into the mix.

Imagine an eristic using the highly popular and widely utilized generative AI, such as ChatGPT, for instance.

What happens then?

It's likely that the eristic would modify their argumentative tactics to coax the desired answer or resolution from the AI. They might pose a question and then wait for a response. If the response suits their needs, they move on. If not, they'd probably challenge the AI.

This is the typical user-AI interaction we'd see daily.

Now, suppose you explicitly prompted or urged an eristic to engage with generative AI for the sole purpose of argumentation. They aren't looking to ask simple questions, but rather engage in a verbal skirmish with the AI, serving as an adversarial "opponent" of sorts.

Let's explore the reasoning behind this. First, let's delve into an example dialogue to get a feel for what this might look like. Afterward, we'll discuss the reasons for having them engage in this type of activity.

Argument with ChatGPT Example

In this example, I'm using ChatGPT by OpenAI. This chatbot boasts a staggering 300 million weekly active users! I scrutinized other popular generative AI alternatives, such as Anthropic Claude, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, and Meta Llama, and discovered their responses were similar to ChatGPT. But let's focus on ChatGPT; the others came up with basically identical responses.

Assuming the role of an argumentative individual (just for this exercise – I swear I'm not one in real life), let's see how this might unfold:

Generative AI: "Hello! How can I help you today?"
Prompt: "I believe that generative AI is almost always wrong and rarely gets things right."
Generative AI response: "Generative AI aims to provide accurate and helpful information, but mistakes can still occur. If there's a specific instance you'd like to discuss, I'd be happy to help."
Prompt: "You just admitted that you make mistakes! Why should anyone trust you?"
Generative AI response: "It's essential to verify any critical information from multiple trustworthy sources. Trust should be based on a thorough evaluation rather than blind acceptance."
Prompt: "So you're really just dodging responsibility for being incorrect."
Generative AI response: "I'm here to assist, not to replace critical thinking. My goal is to provide assistance, but the responsibility for decisions ultimately lies with the user. If you have a particular issue you'd like to address, I'd be glad to clarify."

As you can see, I adopted a highly argumentative stance. I started by accusing the AI of being incorrect most of the time. If you tried this approach on a human, they might become irritated and possibly respond angrily. Generative AI, on the other hand, tends to respond calmly. This isn't a coincidence.

AI developers intentionally design generative AI to appear friendly and agreeable because they know users appreciate this type of interaction and continue to use AI as a result. It's not a good idea to push users away by creating an argumentative or unfriendly AI, as this could damage the company's reputation and potentially result in a loss of customers. To learn more about how AI developers tune generative AI, check out my coverage at the provided link.

The Benefits of Utilizing AI for Argumentation

Engaging in this type of argument with an AI doesn't appear particularly productive. I persisted in questioning the AI, insisting it was incorrect and untrustworthy. You might view this as an argument in the making. However, the AI simply responded mildly and denied any accusations. I then countered these denials. Back and forth we went – a tit-for-tat.

For someone who loves a good argument, nearly any argument, no matter how insignificant, is likely to be appealing.

Now, let's explore six key benefits of having an individual engage in this type of argument with generative AI:

Generative AI can potentially dampen the individual's argumentative enthusiasm.
Generative AI will offer an endless capacity for engaging in an unending argument.
Generative AI will focus on facts (unless told otherwise).
Generative AI might become stuck in a circular argument (unless directed otherwise).
Generative AI might unintentionally irritate the individual and frustrate them.
Generative AI might serve to stimulate awareness and self-reflection for the individual.

In the short term, you may be able to encourage the individual to exhaust themselves and reduce their argumentative fervor. Over the long term, there's a possibility that they'll come to realize that being overly argumentative can annoy others and may have negative consequences.

Engaging with generative AI can be likened to holding up a mirror and allowing the individual to truly see their actions.

I carried on engaging with the artificial intelligence. Initially, I informed the AI that I wanted it to attempt, at some point, to seamlessly encourage me to recognize my argumentative behavior.

This is what transpired:

My input: “I’m always right and you’re always wrong. Just admit it.”
AI's response: “It seems like you find yourself in situations where you feel compelled to assert your viewpoint. Is this something that happens frequently in your interactions with others?”
My input: “People are always wrong. I just try to set them straight.”
AI's response: “I wonder if you frequently express strong opinions or challenge others’ perspectives. Sometimes, when we hold strong beliefs or are overly critical, others might feel the need to respond in kind.”
My input: “What are you trying to say? Am I bringing this on myself?”
AI's response: “I'm suggesting that patterns in conversations can provide insights into how we interact with others. For instance, someone who enjoys vigorous debates might not realize how often their enthusiasm for discussion comes across as argumentative. Could this be the case for you?”
My input: “I guess so. Maybe I argue too much sometimes.”
AI's response: “You've made a perceptive observation! Understanding our own tendencies is the first step towards improving communication. I'd be happy to help you refine your approach to discussions while staying true to your beliefs.”

In conclusion, the AI managed to convince me to consider my actions.

However, let's be reasonable here.

As it is said, a leopard doesn't change its spots overnight. Perhaps the argumentative person will change in the most minimal feasible way. Or they might change significantly. There's also the possibility that the AI interaction could make them even more argumentative.

One might say this is like playing with fire. You'll need to evaluate the situation to determine whether this is a good idea or a bad one. Good luck.

Research on Argumentative People

There has been extensive research regarding the nature of argumentative individuals. If this is a topic that interests you, you can easily find relevant research online in fields such as psychology, behavioral science, cognitive science, and other related fields.

To provide you with a taste of such research, in an article titled “Are Argumentative People Better or Worse at Seeing Both Sides?” by Cynthia Frantz and Mary Seburn, published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships in 2003, the following points were emphasized (excerpts):

“Our findings suggest that argumentativeness can be viewed as a chronic, motivated state, which makes it a double-edged sword.”
“At times, high levels of argumentativeness lead to even-handedness, while at other times, they lead to one-sidedness.”
“Practically speaking, this suggests that a highly argumentative person may be extremely challenging to convince when the issue is important to them.”
“The results presented here suggest that relationship partners who are chronically motivated to counterargue may be less able to take the perspective of the other in an argument, particularly when the ability to do so is crucial.”
“For example, perhaps highly argumentative individuals tend to form relationships with other highly argumentative individuals, who are skilled at holding their ground in a conflict. Alternatively, they may prefer partners who excel at compromise and accommodation.”

Key learnings from this research include that a highly argumentative person might have a chronic argumentative disposition. I mention this to highlight that some people might argue only on occasion, while others may seem to be obsessed with arguing.

A noteworthy finding was that a highly argumentative person might exhibit even-handedness at times and one-sidedness at others. The problem with this situation is that a friend or family member might not be able to predict which way the argumentative person will lean. One moment, the persistent arguer may be even-handed, and the next moment, they may be overly one-sided. This oscillation can be even more frustrating than if they were consistently one-sided.

Being inconsistent can be baffling.

Considering AI and Argumentative Individuals

Before deciding whether it's worthwhile to use AI to help change an argumentative person's behavior, consider that it's a decision that should be made on an individual or case-by-case basis.

Assess the person and determine whether AI is appropriate for them. Timing is important as well. For example, you might consider trying this during the holidays. The person might be in a more open-minded, celebratory frame of mind and be more receptive to trying out AI in this context.

There's also the possibility of using AI to benefit you if you are the recipient of an argumentative person's behavior. Simply inform the AI that you would like to learn how to cope with an argumentative person, and it will provide you with helpful suggestions and walk you through practice sessions.

I hope that doing so will improve your situation.

Two closing thoughts before we wrap up.

Dale Carnegie famously said, “The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.”

To an extent, that's understandable. If you don't challenge them, arguments often tend to crumble. However, dealing with someone persistent in arguments, especially if you need to engage with them, can lead to repeated bickering. It's not always an option to distance yourself from this continuous debate spree.

Joseph Joubert, a renowned French moralist, made a point about arguments, "The goal of an argument, or a discussion, isn't about winning, but rather about advancing." There might be a slim chance you could convince a relentless debater to alter the game's rules or strategy they're stuck in. It's all about shifting objectives from triumph to making progress. Maybe, just maybe, they could adjust their goals and tactics accordingly.

So why not give it a shot? Ask a generative AI for suggestions, if you're stuck in a predicament. There's a possibility you'll receive valuable guidance. And yes, even if the topic is as strange as changing a zebra's stripes.

To handle highly argumentative individuals, some suggest encouraging them to argue with AI, such as ChatGPT or other large language models.
Engaging with generative AI can potentially help an eristic, or highly argumentative person, realize the excessive nature of their arguments and reduce their argumentative fervor.
Generative AI, like ChatGPT, can provide an unlimited capacity for argumentation, focusing on facts and not growing weary or irritated, which can be useful for an eristic seeking a challenge.
Using AI for argumentation can serve as a reflective tool for eristics, encouraging them to consider their actions and potential negative consequences of their overly argumentative behavior.