DiscussionTableStakes

"Table Stakes" is a term that a colleague used frequently. I really like it. He used it in a variety of contexts, most frequently talking about the minimum stake you have to put forward to make a competitive software product. Maybe that means you have to have access to customer sales history and a few data engineers and data scientists to embark on building a product recommendation engine.

In the context of discussion, table stakes are the minimum amount of agreed upon terms you have to accept. You can't have a productive discussion about religion policy if one side will only accept government mandated atheism and the other side will only accept government mandated Buddhism.

For example: The Discussion Table Stakes for "religion policy from a libertarian perspective" might be:

1. Try to maximize the individual right to practice any religion.
2. Try to maximize the individual right to practice no religion.
3. Try to minimize the impact of individual religious practice or non-practice on others.

Getting these things down and agreed upon can massively reduce the amount of rancor in a discussion. Often the two sides at the table have incompatible objectives. This leads to little more than dueling over rhetorical devices, which is not productive discussion.

Said differently, discussion is when you and I work together to find the best path to our shared objectives. Sometimes it involves negotiation, where we each have to give some ground to find an amenable path. Argument is something different. Argument is when you and I cross swords and try to create the most effective presentation to make others (or ourselves) feel like our side is right.

Generally speaking, I have no interest in argument.