How to debate.

[Gaze]

How do you think it is the healthiest way for you to show disagreement to the other parties involved?

I think one thing would be to show disagreement for the ideas without disagreement to the person. If you make it personal, then the focus is taken away from the real issue or problem. So, this is where your nonverbals are key, in a face-to-face of course. How you frame and phrase your disagreement is very important. It is also important to understand the unwritten rules and expectations for the situation in which you are engaging in debate. Is it appropriate to express disagreement in that context? Is it acceptable to express disagreement directly? If you express it too forcefully then the point you make will be lost and everyone will be focusing on the way you expressed it rather than the point of disagreement however valid it is. But there is no one way to express disagreement. What is acceptable in one circumstance is not acceptable in another. In some situations, vigorous debate and disagreement is considered appropriate. In other situations, it isn't. Keep in mind that people associate their views with their identity as individuals, so simply disagreeing with someone's point of view may signal for them a disavowal of who they are. Be sure to be explicit about the nature of the disagreement, and do not allow your personal feelings or biases to overwhelm reason. But recognize that they do affect you. If that disagreement is reasonable, then explain the reasoning behind it. And be prepared for the reality that some may never be accepting of disagreement despite how nicely, politely, or appropriately it's expressed. So, be prepared to walk away and withdraw or let it go, especially in those cases where it's clear that the parties you are disagreeing with refuse to consider the point, and are taking offense. Because then it becomes more about you vs. them, missing the point of the disagreement altogether. So, hope that helps to answer the question somewhat.

 

[slant]

I would say the best method to debate is to catch people off guard with sounding logical but making no sense at all. Use large words, and if someone comes around who uses larger words than you try to prove them wrong in a way entirely irrlevant to the debate such as the fact they are a convicted child paedophile and therefore has no merit to talk about whether or not taxes should be raised.

 

[Afrelen]

I would say the best method to debate is to catch people off guard with sounding logical but making no sense at all. Use large words, and if someone comes around who uses larger words than you try to prove them wrong in a way entirely irrlevant to the debate such as the fact they are a convicted child paedophile and therefore has no merit to talk about whether or not taxes should be raised.

Works for politicians so it has to be effective!

 

[Norton]

First, examine the assumptions. Second, examine the logic. Usually, the assumptions are vulnerable to attack.

 

[enfp can be shy]

If you win the debate, you've lost it, for sure. I hate winning debates (unfortunately i often do, which shows my ego is not good enough). Also over 99% of the debates are pointless, people really do not achieve anything with them. They might as well just have a naked fight in front of some crowd, if it was about that, and not about mutual learning.

I'd always recommend a debate to be in private; that helps - less ego and show off is involved. When someone's watching, passions are stronger and words are harsher.

The usefulness of debates is questionalble, I think people just inform each other about their views and that's all; very rarely they also agree on some points, so much, to switch opinion. It is seen as wish-wash, as dishonorable, if you change your mind. I'm shocked to see the same thing even among scientific communities; at least they should know better, but they are also like the rest of us. They compete about "being right"; as if it's more important *who* is right, instead of *what* is right.

There are sane people too, it is a pleasure to argue with them, which could be compared to reading a book, while also writing a book for them to read. In other words, such debate is creative.

The method that works best is the following:
1. Identify the psychological/cognitive relation between you and the opponent; what makes your views different; what is the reason for difference?
2. Adapt your views; find the sources for them (as much as possible; this is hard in practice), adapt the sources to match the understanding of your opponent and present the data to them.
3. Pray to your gods for luck, but don't have too much hope.

Most often, it's better to simply write an article or a book about it.

 

[Gaze]

If you win the debate, you've lost it, for sure. I hate winning debates (unfortunately i often do, which shows my ego is not good enough). Also over 99% of the debates are pointless, people really do not achieve anything with them. They might as well just have a naked fight in front of some crowd, if it was about that, and not about mutual learning.

I'd always recommend a debate to be in private; that helps - less ego and show off is involved. When someone's watching, passions are stronger and words are harsher.

The usefulness of debates is questionalble, I think people just inform each other about their views and that's all; very rarely they also agree on some points, so much, to switch opinion. It is seen as wish-wash, as dishonorable, if you change your mind. I'm shocked to see the same thing even among scientific communities; at least they should know better, but they are also like the rest of us. They compete about "being right"; as if it's more important *who* is right, instead of *what* is right.

There are sane people too, it is a pleasure to argue with them, which could be compared to reading a book, while also writing a book for them to read. In other words, such debate is creative.

The method that works best is the following:
1. Identify the psychological/cognitive relation between you and the opponent; what makes your views different; what is the reason for difference?
2. Adapt your views; find the sources for them (as much as possible; this is hard in practice), adapt the sources to match the understanding of your opponent and present the data to them.
3. Pray to your gods for luck, but don't have too much hope.

Most often, it's better to simply write an article or a book about it.

Good points. I pretty much agree with this.

 

[AUM]

I think one thing would be to show disagreement for the ideas without disagreement to the person. If you make it personal, then the focus is taken away from the real issue or problem. So, this is where your nonverbals are key, in a face-to-face of course. How you frame and phrase your disagreement is very important. It is also important to understand the unwritten rules and expectations for the situation in which you are engaging in debate. Is it appropriate to express disagreement in that context? Is it acceptable to express disagreement directly? If you express it too forcefully then the point you make will be lost and everyone will be focusing on the way you expressed it rather than the point of disagreement however valid it is. But there is no one way to express disagreement. What is acceptable in one circumstance is not acceptable in another. In some situations, vigorous debate and disagreement is considered appropriate. In other situations, it isn't. Keep in mind that people associate their views with their identity as individuals, so simply disagreeing with someone's point of view may signal for them a disavowal of who they are. Be sure to be explicit about the nature of the disagreement, and do not allow your personal feelings or biases to overwhelm reason. But recognize that they do affect you. If that disagreement is reasonable, then explain the reasoning behind it. And be prepared for the reality that some may never be accepting of disagreement despite how nicely, politely, or appropriately it's expressed. So, be prepared to walk away and withdraw or let it go, especially in those cases where it's clear that the parties you are disagreeing with refuse to consider the point, and are taking offense. Because then it becomes more about you vs. them, missing the point of the disagreement altogether. So, hope that helps to answer the question somewhat.

This is quite accurate. One of my biggest flaws when debating is that my feelings get too much on the way and it's one of the reasons that I've avoid debating online since I automatically assume that whenever someone is responding in a dry matter that they are somehow frustrated. IRL it's much easier since it's much easier for me to put a check on the mood of the conversation.

Thanks Restraint.

 

[bamf]

I hate positional debates, posturing, and debating just to be heard.

I'd much rather come into a debate with the goal of coming to conclusions, and making compromises. If you come into a debate as partners rather than enemies, things might actually get done. However, most people don't like to do this. They'd rather just show off their 'mental muscle'.

 

[Gaze]

I hate positional debates, posturing, and debating just to be heard.

I'd much rather come into a debate with the goal of coming to conclusions, and making compromises. If you come into a debate as partners rather than enemies, things might actually get done. However, most people don't like to do this. They'd rather just show off their 'mental muscle'.

Agree.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Here's my main thing: objectivity, in people, does not exist. No person can hold an option and be totally objective. However, a person can consider multiple viewpoints and subjective material, especially the contradictory stuff, and weigh it against the situation to come up with a best-fit conclusion.

What does this mean? Well, if someone claims they're being objective, it's a load of bull. If someone refuses to listen to or think about the other half of the argument, they probably don't really have the clearest picture of what they're talking about. This is good to keep in mind, because often times the pseudo-intellectual people that think they're so smart and high-and-mighty do this, and so it's a good way to gauge the assholery of your opponent and the actual worth of continuing the debate, since they may not listen to your side anyways due to their blatant self-absorption.

That's all

 

[TheLastMohican]

Here's my main thing: objectivity, in people, does not exist. No person can hold an option and be totally objective.

...What does this mean? Well, if someone claims they're being objective, it's a load of bull.

I think you're conflating human subjectivity with the subjectivity of arguments. This approach can be used to put objective and subjective arguments on the same level under the guise of universal subjectivity.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

I think you're conflating human subjectivity with the subjectivity of arguments. This approach can be used to put objective and subjective arguments on the same level under the guise of universal subjectivity.

Humans are very bad at arguing objectively. In many ways, two opinions can differ, but both be based on "objective" reasoning -- what I'm trying to say is, claiming one's own argument is superior because it is "objective" is often a sort of cop-out. You have arguments that are less emotionally bias, which is ideal, but true objectivity is difficult to maintain, and those that have consistently objective arguments don't usually have to verbally label it as such.

In other words, you have subjective arguments, and you have less subjective arguments. It's good to try to be as objective as possible. But I've notice that those who believe their arguments are superior because they are "objective" and openly express such are usually people you want to avoid arguing with. They have a tendency to have superiority complexes (although there are obviously plenty of exceptions).

 

[sookie]

offering proof and specific examples. You must be as concrete as possible

 

[Gaze]

I hate positional debates, posturing, and debating just to be heard.

I'd much rather come into a debate with the goal of coming to conclusions, and making compromises. If you come into a debate as partners rather than enemies, things might actually get done. However, most people don't like to do this. They'd rather just show off their 'mental muscle'.

Agree.

 

[Celsius100]

Lot of unrelated pie charts and line graphs. People like pictures.

I've found that humor about the situation has helped me turn more people around even if temporarily than anything else. Considering my lack of concern in debating though, I'm not sure that should be considered a trump card.

To be a bit more serious though, having counterpoint counters ready is a good thing though when it's something important. Researching common arguments against your point and finding well founded rebuttals is good for catching someone a bit off-guard sometimes. It kept my folks from taking me out of art school for stupid reasons over a continuous three or four week debate earlier in my college career. Arguing for five or six straight hours and keeping your points straight and accurate is a pain in the ass, but it pays off when your opponent runs out of steam and ways to argue.

Good etiquette helps as well. Slinging insults will hardly help convince your opponent(s) to give you a chance. Slinging boulders with a trebuchet on the other hand will HARDLY help convince your opponent(s) to give you a chance, or more.

I stand by unrelated pie charts and line graphs though.