How to improve your debate skills

[enfp can be shy]

LOL @ NAI


That reminded me, actually...
Proofs are another fallacy. The best professor I've seen in person used to tell his students that "proof" means some expression in a formal language that gets accepted by sufficient amount of other people who have been given special titles. Also, there are some proofs that are only fully understood by less than a dozen living beings, and each of them has some minor doubts, but in the end they all agree... Proofs get accepted, later get refuted. Proofs get rejected, later get supported.

Democracy has nothing to do with truth, and for now it plays quite some role in what is considered true. For all I know, many of the versions of truth, that have been accepted as valid, have become tendentiously skewed by the personal thinking bias of those who most often get the official positions of the required intellectual influence.

@TLM
Based on my current (very limited) understanding of the human brain, I assume people train some biases, which lead them to repetitive behavior, one of which is being predominantly critical and sceptical. The problem with obsessive scepticism is that it is a trade off with perception/observation. So you have people who observe more data, but can't prove it to those who don't observe it and are more interested in proofs for the proofs' sake. And vice-versa, the proof-oriented people could prove to the others anything that the data rejects, like the church used to prove how many demons occupy a nail.

 

[sassafras]

First, one should understand the concept of fallacy and why it has no place in debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority).

Definitely worth looking into each fallacy type. Once you study them you would be amazed how often you spot them.

Isn't it fortunate that we use far more fallacies in argumentation than actual logic?

 

[NeverAmI]

LOL @ NAI


That reminded me, actually...
Proofs are another fallacy.

Perhaps in a theoretical debate that can be true, where the concept of reality or science is being debated.

The best professor I've seen in person used to tell his students that "proof" means some expression in a formal language that gets accepted by sufficient amount of other people who have been given special titles. Also, there are some proofs that are only fully understood by less than a dozen living beings, and each of them has some minor doubts, but in the end they all agree... Proofs get accepted, later get refuted. Proofs get rejected, later get supported.

This seems a bit too convoluted for me. I was simply looking for an answer showing where you witnessed so many debates being about people beating each other. You had to have some sort of basis for this opinion, and that is what I am looking for. You saying it isn't enough to convince me to believe you.

Democracy has nothing to do with truth, and for now it plays quite some role in what is considered true. For all I know, many of the versions of truth, that have been accepted as valid, have become tendentiously skewed by the personal thinking bias of those who most often get the official positions of the required intellectual influence.

What is this in regards to?

 

[NeverAmI]

Isn't it fortunate that we use far more fallacies in argumentation than actual logic?

Indeed! Fallacies tend to work WAY too well.

 

[NeverAmI]

I should mention that critical thinking is completely anti-intiuitive by definition. Being unable to prove something means it is disregarded in the system of critical thinking. That is unless you have a proven record of intuition being correct. I think it is important to understand the framework and how it works, and learn to use it.

ENFP has a good point that truths can be unfounded, but that would be a skew of the fundamental concept of critical thinking. Critical thinking isn't about simply accepting truths, it is about questioning everything.

However, I believe it is also important to give proper weight to the unknown and to keep your mind open to the many possibilities that we may not comprehend.

 

[bamf]

I guess I view debating in a much different light than many of the people posting here.

Personally, I hate debating to 'win', I hate debating to be 'right', and I hate debating from position. If this is what debating is, well then I guess I don't like debating.

I don't like going into a debate with 'teams', or as enemies. I'd rather go in to a debate on the same side of the table as someone. I'd rather go in exchanging ideas in a way to learn, and not to prove someone right or wrong.

I see debate as a tool to come to solutions, and a consensus. I don't want to come out a loser or a winner. I'd rather come out with an answer that is agreeable to both sides...yeah, I'm that lame.

 

[NeverAmI]

I guess I view debating in a much different light than many of the people posting here.

Personally, I hate debating to 'win', I hate debating to be 'right', and I hate debating from position. If this is what debating is, well then I guess I don't like debating.

I don't like going into a debate with 'teams', or as enemies. I'd rather go in to a debate on the same side of the table as someone. I'd rather go in exchanging ideas in a way to learn, and not to prove someone right or wrong.

I see debate as a tool to come to solutions, and a consensus. I don't want to come out a loser or a winner. I'd rather come out with an answer that is agreeable to both sides...yeah, I'm that lame.

I am exactly the same, if I don't think I will learn anything from a debate, nor will the other party, I stop. I really don't enjoy arguing to win unless someone gets under my skin and I am being childish, in which case I probably won't win.

I really enjoy hearing the perspectives of others and I try to be accomodating.

 

[Timeless]

A good debater embraces both logic and emotion to win over an audience.

Too much emotion, and you come across as a naive preacher.

Too much logic, and you come across as a heartless salesman.

Perfect example is that scene from the movie Other People's Money (1991):

Too much emotion:

[YOUTUBE]xJRhrow3Jws[/YOUTUBE]

Too much logic:

[YOUTUBE]MfL7STmWZ1c[/YOUTUBE]

If you believe what you stand for (emotion) and have done your research (logic) you'll become rock-solid. Most people lean towards one end and fuck it up. I've seen it too many times in my speech/debate class.

A good debater also looks for flaws in the other opponents argument and focuses on that to no end. A real debate has too many dots (facts, ideas, evidence). The more dots a debater can connect, the more he or she will have on his side. In other words, as an example:

Debate: Gun control.

For: Guns kill people, my cousin's neighbor's aunt's nephew got shot. They have no purpose.
†In 1997, since we banned guns in Lala land, crime has stopped.
†The Second Amendment is old and outdated (you would need your evidence).

Against: It violates our Second Amendment. It protects us. We need our protection.
†In 1996, since So-&-so banned guns, crime rates have risen 50% up!
†Since people are unprotected, a criminal obtaining a gun can have control over innocent people (you would need your evidence).

It's all about how many dots you placed and how many you can connect while also showing you're human like everybody else and not a heartless robot.

In the end, if there's an audience or not. All debates in one way or another end in values, ethics, and beliefs. If you can reach down the bottom touching the most common principles (how you connect people) you win. Or better yet, help and/or challenge those bottom beliefs, but that's a bit more complex...

Think JFK or MLK.



P.S. Obviously I'm simplifying it. There's way too many nitty gritty details you can get into; to connect the rest of the dots. Maybe later, maybe not!

[/entp]

 

[TheLastMohican]

Definitely worth looking into each fallacy type. Once you study them you would be amazed how often you spot them.

Yep, this is a good site for those who want a comprehensive list:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index

One thing to be careful of is broadening the definition of a fallacy and wrongly applying it. I've seen people on the internet clumsily wielding superficial knowledge of fallacies, and making themselves look foolish in the process (e.g., crying "appeal to authority" when someone quotes a scientific study).

I was on the debate team at my middle school for about a year and that taught me very little about debating, really. Does that mean I just had a crappy team?

I have not been personally involved in debate teams, but I get the impression that they emphasize form over substance. Everyday debates are not nearly so structured.

Proofs are another fallacy.

Um, no. Logical proofs are perfectly valid. The problem with many real-world "proofs" is that they depend on the validity of the premises, and proving a premise is, in most cases, technically impossible.

In common usage, however, it's fine to say that something exhaustively tested and demonstrated is "proven."

@TLM
Based on my current (very limited) understanding of the human brain, I assume people train some biases, which lead them to repetitive behavior, one of which is being predominantly critical and sceptical. The problem with obsessive scepticism is that it is a trade off with perception/observation. So you have people who observe more data, but can't prove it to those who don't observe it and are more interested in proofs for the proofs' sake. And vice-versa, the proof-oriented people could prove to the others anything that the data rejects, like the church used to prove how many demons occupy a nail.

The people who come up with theories and try to (dis)prove them are very often the same ones who are observing and analyzing the data. I don't understand what "trained biases" you are talking about.

Didn't you also say something about critical thinkers being addicted to criticizing and judging other people? That's what I was mainly confused by, since critical thinking is defined by an approach to claims and concepts, not interpersonal relations.

 

[enfp can be shy]

My fav. fallacy is correlation/causation. It seems human brains keep seeing causality where there's none. Things just are, and we always assume there's a special reason. Some {A,B} exists. Some people say A causes B, others say B causes A. The former make experiments in such way that they get results about A causing B, the latter do the opposite. And the more data they gather, the more it seems both A and B just co-exist. This happens everywhere. It seems there's very little actual causality in existence.

In common usage, however, it's fine to say that something exhaustively tested and demonstrated is "proven."

For the time being. I learned to view all laws of physics as temporary and local-based.

The people who come up with theories and try to (dis)prove them are very often the same ones who are observing and analyzing the data. I don't understand what "trained biases" you are talking about.

I find there is a clash between the notion of data and the notion of proof/debate. Because data is undeniable, and proof contains some form of logical speculation. /results in natural sciences often reject purely logical approaches/

Didn't you also say something about critical thinkers being addicted to criticizing and judging other people? That's what I was mainly confused by, since critical thinking is defined by an approach to claims and concepts, not interpersonal relations.

That's how I define it too, but I've noticed that usually those who practice it, do not talk as much about it, as those who have taken it as some canon. The popular understanding of critical is one who doesn't get "fooled", which I don't think is that important. /i.e. people can cheat, but data can't/

 

[Duty]

First, what do you mean by debate?

This is both a serious question and a lesson...defining the parameters of a debate should always be the first step. Often things will become easy to argue for if you can pin down a non vague definition.

Many people will try hard to keep the discussion in the realm of vagueness. If they refuse to specify and keep going on with their vague notion of the subject, then either:

a) If you don't care about possibly frustrating them, interpret their vagueness in the least accommodating light possible: straw man them repeatedly (as it's not really a fallacy in this case, as you are only going on an interpretation). They will have to get down to defining and being much more clear about what they mean else they'll lose.

b) If you don't want to frustrate them, then just say that the concept is too vague and you can't reach a conclusion.

Anyways, what do you mean by debate?

If you want to actually be right about an argument, then the best tip is to make sure you cite good, true premises and then make sure your conclusion follows from them. At the same time criticize the truth or legitimacy of your opponent's premises or the faults in his logic if s/he indeed has made errors. Be open minded though, as that kind of debate is intended to enlighten, not to "be right."

Now if you're just trying to convince a crowd or the person you are debating with, you're in the realm of true rhetoric and the complex differences in situations make advice tough to give. You're also out of my better areas of expertise. The rules become much more muddy here, as people are convinced by things less...useful...then a justified and true argument. I would recommend reading up a lot on rhetoric and social psychology, especially the parts on increasing your perceived status. I can relay some of the information I've learned recently, as I'm learning how to do this side of conversation and charisma for myself.

What I just did there is another tip: make distinctions. This is always handy, but really really handy if you are having a debate with multiple other sides...you seem to "understand" both sides a lot more, and then offer a perspective that is usually perceptive. It also helps if the party you are debating is still wanting to be vague. Ask them questions that draw distinctions (Do you mean 'top' as in the toy or the direction?).


For all situations, it never helps to make the concept as clear as possible. That way everyone is on board and there are little misunderstandings. When asked what he would do given an hour to save the world, Einstein replied, "I'd spend 55 minutes defining the problem and only 5 minutes solving it."

 

[TheLastMohican]

Well look at that, here we are on the second page and just getting started on providing real debate tips.
I'd better start keeping count.

#1: Be right more often.

#2: Escalate the syllables. If your opponent starts using four-syllable words, use five-syllable words in your reply. He'll have to admit linguistic defeat before long.

#3: Try structuring your sentences in reverse order, Yoda-style.

#4: Pepper your sentences with Latin, French, German and Russian phrases that at least initially appear to be commonly used. (The idea is to make your opponent feel woefully ignorant by comparison. Use italics to really drive it home.)

#5: Don't stop typing. Great walls of tiny text are far more disheartening than concise and valid points. If you have reason to believe your opponent is dyslexic, you might get away with repeating yourself many times over with only slightly different phrasing.