Sign In
Create Account
Sign Up
Phil • Cr. Think • Science • Hist • …
TST PRACTICE
Sign In

The Philosophy Website

Sign In
Create Account
PRACTICE
The Prestwood Column
Undertanding Threads

Column Research Audio

Persuasion

(Oct 2026: Persuasion)

~ 10 to 12 minutes of audio
AUDIO
Column
Read Column
»Column Archive

I’m your host, Michael Alan Prestwood and this is the column research for the  

October 2026 edition

 of The Prestwood Column.

This is the expanded story mode edition.  

Earlier this year I wrote my 5 column Understanding MAGA series and the feedback has been almost entirely positive. I think because the series is not partisan, despite the headline grabbing title. It’s really just a fair look at how people end up in something like MAGA. I’m very proud of the series. If you haven’t read it yet, start here:

The only real feedback I got was along the lines of interesting, but how can we convert someone? So, this month’s topic is persuasion. To tackle persuasion, we’ll use one of history’s great persuaders as our role model: Roger Williams.

With that, let’s frame the key idea. 

Persuasion.

In this column, we connect Persuasion with the thinking of Roger Williams.

The best persuaders do not attack identity; they create room for reconsideration. Roger Williams offers a useful model: engage people within their own framework, find common ground, and let persuasion grow from dialogue rather than force.

Now for the 6 research tidbits. The goal, to blend intersections into wisdom.

In this project, claims are not merely asserted. They are attached to evidence, context, and traceable sources.

The key ideas are available on the home page, but this is the only place to get the “rest of the story.”

Idea 1.

A Religion Story.

The Great Quaker Debates!.

9 Aug 1672

The Great Quaker Debates took place on August 9, 10, 12, and 17, 1672. Although Roger Williams welcomed people with differing beliefs, he also relished the opportunity to present his own viewpoint. At about 69 or 70 years old, he rowed himself from Providence to Newport, more than 25 miles, arriving near midnight for the debate the next morning. His brother Robert, then a schoolmaster in Newport, helped during the proceedings. The first three days were held in Newport, with the final day held in Providence. Large audiences attended. Biblical Studies

Williams had originally challenged the famous Quaker George Fox, but Fox had already left Rhode Island. So Williams debated prominent Quakers William Edmundson, John Stubbs, and John Burnyeat instead. He organized his case into fourteen propositions, debating the first seven in Newport and the remaining seven in Providence on August 17. After four days of vigorous argument, nobody appears to have changed sides. That alone makes the episode a pretty good lesson in the limits of persuasion.

Four years later Williams published his account as George Fox Digg’d out of his Burrowes. The title itself was a double pun on George Fox and fellow Quaker Edward Burrough. Williams considered Quaker theology seriously wrong and sometimes wrote about it harshly, but he still defended the Quakers’ right to live and worship freely in Rhode Island. That is the important nuance. Tolerance did not mean agreement. Williams could argue forcefully against a belief while defending the civil liberty of the person holding it. The Great Quaker Debates remain an early example of fierce public disagreement living alongside liberty of conscience.

 

I wrote that Religion Story, 

and posted it to TST 8 years ago.

 

Idea 2.

A History Quote.

“All men are prone to differ. It is no new thing in all former ages, in all parts. Each party is most right in his own eyes.”.

  • Roger Williams.
  • 1648.

There are many Roger Williams quotes that exemplify freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. The following is my favorite quote on differing opinions. This quote is from the introduction to a paper he submitted in a town meeting that occurred on 31 Jun 1648.

Here is a fuller version of his quote:

“…all men are apt & prone to differ it is no New Thing in all former Ages in all parts of this World…either part or partie is most right in his owne eyes…”–Roger Williams, 1648.

For me, Williams’ insight gets to the core of what I call the Debate Viewpoint: the understanding that everyone has a viewpoint. Just like you, people enter a disagreement believing they are right. Understanding that dynamic changes how you approach persuasion. The goal is not to react to every sentence or win every point.

Emotion and quick replies are too often the downfall. Someone says something that irritates you, you fire back, and suddenly the conversation has wandered into an area you never wanted to debate. A better approach is to pivot. A debate pivot steps above the dialogue for a moment, looks at where the dialogue is, and chooses better ground. You then acknowledging a point, and steer the discussion toward stronger ground. Instead of asking,

“What is my reply to what was just said?”

ask,

“Where do I want this conversation to go?”

Of course, this only works when you apply critical thinking, remain open-minded, and let facts change your thinking when they should. Fact check new facts. If true, start by acknowledging that truth. Then contextualize how it fits into the larger picture through your lens. In my view, if you are doing that honestly, you’re doing debate right.

I wrote that History Quote, 

and posted it to TST 2 hours ago.

 

Idea 3.

A Science FAQ.

Do facts actually change minds?.

Yes, facts can change minds. While you cannot change someone else’s worldview or identity in a debate, you can persuade a specific belief.

Here’s what scientific studies have shown.

Corrections done right make people more accurate, and no one wants to be wrong. So the realistic goal is not instant conversion. It is helping one idea become a little more aligned with reality. 

When correcting someone, lead with what is true. Keep it simple. Give the evidence and, when needed, explain what actually happened rather than merely saying the original claim is false. Research on misinformation recommends the following:

  1. emphasize anything accurate within the bad argument,
  2. briefly identify the error,
  3. explain why it is wrong,
  4. and then explain the correct explanation.

Giving people a replacement explanation matters because simply removing a false idea can leave a hole that the old story continues to fill.

Also, do not turn the correction into a personal contest. One four-country experiment found that presenting fact-checks as confirmation of what is true, worked better than emphasizing the person is wrong. Other experiments show that simply encouraging people to focus on accuracy can improve their ability to distinguish true from false information. In other words, give the person room to reconsider without demanding that they admit defeat. Don’t overwhelm someone with twenty facts. Focus on correcting one or two at a time, not the person.

Unfortunately, misinformation can remain influential even after correction. Even if they agree in an exchange, their agreement often fades with time. That’s frustrating, but also demonstrates the actual level of influence you have over others.

Explain clearly and let the other person think. Your job is to present reality as clearly as you can. Their job is to decide what to do with it.

I wrote that Science FAQ, 

and posted it to TST 4 days ago.

 

Idea 4.

A Philosophy FAQ.

When does persuasion become manipulation?.

Persuasion becomes manipulation when you stop respecting the other person’s agency. Persuasion says,

“Here is what I think, here are my reasons, and here is the evidence.”

Manipulation tries to control the outcome with thinking errors. It can use deception, selective facts, emotional pressure, fear, guilt, or other tricks designed to push someone toward a conclusion without giving them a fair chance to think it through for themselves.

The line is not always clean. All persuasion involves influence. We choose which facts to present, how to frame them, and which arguments we think are strongest. Emotion is not automatically manipulation either. A moving story can be perfectly honest. A useful test is to ask:

Am I helping this person understand my position, or am I trying to bypass their ability to decide for themselves?

If you have to hide facts, distort the opposing view, or knowingly mislead them to win, you have crossed the line.

Roger Williams gives us a good model. He argued hard and clearly believed other people were wrong, but liberty of conscience meant they still had the right to remain unconvinced. That is an important limit on persuasion. Make your case. Ask questions. Challenge ideas. Present the facts. But eventually, let the other person decide. 

I wrote that Philosophy FAQ, 

and posted it to TST 2 hours ago.

 

Idea 5.

A Critical Thinking FAQ.

How can you tell when a debate has stopped being productive?.

A debate has usually stopped being productive when you are no longer examining the same claim. The conversation starts looping, goalposts move, old points are repeated, or one side refuses to acknowledge facts that have already been established. Personal attacks are another clue. Once the focus shifts from the idea to the person, you are often no longer evaluating anything. You are just fighting.

Another warning sign is that neither person is willing to update. Good debate requires at least some possibility that evidence, logic, or clarification could change your mind. If every answer simply creates another objection, or every fact is dismissed because it came from the “wrong” source, there may be nothing left to evaluate. At that point, continuing usually adds heat without adding understanding.

When that happens, exit cleanly. You can also say,

“I don’t think we’re getting anywhere, so I’m going to leave it here.”

I personally don’t favor that approach. It fails to pivot toward the relationship.

A common approach is to summarize where you agree, state where you still disagree, and stop without trying to land one final punch. Something as simple as,

“I think we understand each other’s positions, we just disagree, and that’s okay.”

That works surprisingly well. 

My dad’s advice was to change the subject. You can simply say,

“I’d like to stop now, how about we take a break from this, and talk about x.”

That’s my favorite because it frequently brings humanity back into the dialogue. When I can remember to do it, it has worked well. A good exit should protect the relationship and keep the door open for a better conversation later.

I wrote that Critical Thinking FAQ, 

and posted it to TST 2 hours ago.

 

Idea 6.

A History FAQ.

What is the history of debate?.

Known debate goes back to at least ancient Greece, where citizens argued cases in courts and policies in assemblies. That created a market for teachers of persuasion, especially the Sophists. Originally, sophist meant something closer to a wise or skilled teacher, not a deceiver. But Plato drew a sharp distinction between philosophy and what he saw as empty rhetoric: the philosopher should care about truth and even welcome being proven wrong. Over time, that criticism helped turn sophistry into our modern word for clever but misleading argument.

Debate continued evolving. The Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 are a useful example of good debate. Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debated seven times while campaigning for an Illinois Senate seat, mostly over slavery and its expansion. These were not polite philosophy seminars, but they were substantial: one candidate spoke for an hour, the other for ninety minutes, followed by a thirty-minute rebuttal. Three hours gave both sides room to develop arguments, answer criticism, and let the public hear real differences in their positions.

Modern presidential debates are very different. Television added performance and winning back into the mix. The famous Kennedy and Nixon debate of 1960 started it all. Today the format gives voters some useful information, but it also rewards sophistry. It rewards quick answers, attacks, and meme-like content. Presidential debates can tell us something about communication under pressure and command of issues, but that is only a small part of the actual job of governing.

I wrote that History FAQ, 

and posted it to TST 2 hours ago.

 

That’s it for this issue!

Join us again next month. A new set of ideas lands on TouchstoneTruth on the first of the month, and emailed the next day.

If you don’t subscribe, please visit TouchstoneTruth.com and click the Subscribe button.

Each monthly Prestwood Column focuses on one central idea, supported by Column Research and reinforced through the Wisdom Builder.

Thanks for listening.

The end.

Scroll to Top