How-to debate

[Comraddict]

What is secret of converting thoughts to well-rounded words?

And how often we say to oursleves: "That is exactly what I thought, but I couldn't put it out so nice"

Some advices would be helpful. We are here debating a lot, so it shouldn't be hard.

 

[SoCalian]

Join a forensics class at school they'll teach ya.

 

[Perfection]

Listen listen listen, the more you pay attention to the other person, the more effectively you can debate. Many times when people debate the think about what they are going to say instead of what the other person is saying. You must know exactly what their points are if you are going to crush their arguement.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Well, to me, the best way to debate is to think clearly about our point of view (I'm actually breaking up an opened door in here). Personaly I don't consider I debate well, mostly because I'm too impatient. I want to answer fast and I don't think about how to organize my ideas.

This is to me the most important in debate : We must clearly know what are our ideas about something and we must also know what are others points of view so that we can start by using their ideas to logically prove it leads to our own point of view. However, I must add a debate is pointless once we don't want to hear what others have to say. A debate is interesting to me only if we are open minded and ready to change our own views (which is often not my case ... bad me !).

 

[ltcoljt]

There are two general types of debate: policy and parlimentary.

Here is something associated with policy debating:


THE CODE OF THE DEBATER


I am a debater.

I attempt to be worthy of this title by striving to observe the code of the debater.


FOR MYSELF:

I will research my topic and know what I am talking about.

I will respect the subject matter of my debates.

I will choose persuasion over coercion and violence.

I will learn from victory and especially from defeat.

I will be a generous winner and a gracious loser.

I will remember and respect where I came even though I am now a citizen of the world.

I will apply my criticism of others to myself.

I will strive to see myself in others.

I will, in a debate, use the best arguments I can to support the side I am on.

I will, in life, use the best arguments I can to determine which side I am on.


FOR OTHERS:

I will respect their rights to freedom of speech and expression, even though we may disagree.

I will respect my partners, opponents, judges, coaches, and tournament officials.

I will be honest about my arguments and evidence and those of others.

I will help those with less experience, because I am both student and teacher.

I will be an advocate in life, siding with those in need and willing to speak truth to power.

 

[Kilroy]

Generally speaking, last post wins

 

[ltcoljt]

Policy debates are formal and require sources and strict adherence to demonstrable facts.

Parlimentary debates allow for more subjective out of the box thinging and more appeal to emotion. This is the kind of debate that we are familar with and you see it in politics and yes, here on this forum.

In neither case should you see rudeness, which unfortunately does appear far too often here.

Some topics lend themselves more to one type of debate than another.

 

[ltcoljt]

Originally posted by Kilroy
Generally speaking, last post wins

I have been on forums that actually had semi formal debates that were judged by the community and these were great.

Someone would start a thread like Debate: The Federal government and abortion. Then people would volunteer to debate. The catch was that they didn't get to choose which side they wanted to argue. This made the whole thing a pretty legitimate mental exercise.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Even if in most of case you must stay open minded and ready to change your view, sometimes, a debate could be about something you really care of. In such a case, you're not ready to do any concessions and you must explain why. However, I've aquired some nasty tricks to slightly change the mind of the one who disagrees with you (these are the kind of things I shouln't talk about) :

1- Fill your post with references to prove you know a lot more the question than him. However, those references must be always true and you can't just say : "I know the thing better than you". When you say so, you just make the guy in front even more angry and that makes him feel he's even more right than before.

2- When you read the point of someone and that you feel he did everything to prove you were wrong, just start your answer with : "Exactly, you just got my point." and then you slightly distort his position to prove it's not that far from yours.

3- Use analogy. This one is quite risky since your analogy should be totally accurate. If your analogy isn't credible, than it will just prove even more to your "opponent" that you have really understand nothing about it.


Things you should never use :

1- Insults.

2- Personal attacks.

3- Whinings and such. Actually, I'm a pro to always say "I felt insulted by what you just said"... I know I shouldn't do so, but when it's getting too emotional, I can't help it. I must change that since it's truely annoying to everyone.

 

[The Yankee]

Yeah, did something like that in high school. Didn't get to choose which side of the issue (which we didn't get to choose either). I wound up being for mandatory prayer in schools. But I still researched the topic, attacked like hell the holes in the other person's arguments, and made points that would appeal to everyone while remaining firm. After that, the class and the teacher said I won the debate.

You would think this would happen more often on these forums, with all the intelligent people we have here. But it seems to get too caught up in emotion for one side to articulate very clearly. But we still get good debating going on, only sometimes will the "You suck!" "No, YOU suck!" argument pop up.

 

[SoCalian]

@ Itcoljt:
Are you an NFL member? If so how many point you got. If not where is your debate experience from?

 

[ltcoljt]

Why don't we set up a debate and see if we can pull it off without it self destructing?

 

[Jormurgandr]

It is very important to know about logical fallacies. Learn them well, and you can easily find holes in your opponent's argument. Equally important is that it allows you to find holes in your own arguments.

Don't just attack your opponent's argument; attack your own. That is, see if you can find any flaws in your argument; filter your thoughts carefully before voicing them.

Do your research. If you don't know what you're talking about, you won't win. If you haven't seen the opponent's arguments before, you'll be less prepared to deal with them. You won't be able to tell if your opponent is pulling his facts from reliable sources or from somewhere else unless you research the topic.

It is easy to give most people a rhetorical beating if you master these things, but winning isn't everything, as the Code of the Debater that ltcoljt posted states. Keep in mind your purpose when debating. People are emotional and social beings; all the logic and evidence in the world won't convince someone if you are mean, pretentious, pedantic, or obnoxious. Be as gracious as you can.

Don't be tempted to resort to style-over-substance rhetoric. That comes from the mouth of dictators and is an enemy of logic and morality. Hitler was among the most effective orators of modern times.

 

[ltcoljt]

Originally posted by SoCalian
@ Itcoljt:
Are you an NFL member? If so how many point you got. If not where is your debate experience from?

No, I am not. My school did have an informal debate club but I really have no formal experience. We had a D&D group that had some pretty reflective members and sometime we had debates for a change of pace. Our DM ran the debates. It was pretty much a blast.

Most of my debate experience comes from life with the wife.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Actually, I think it would be funny to see how far I can defend an idea I don't share. I support the idea of distributing "characters" randomly before launching a thread in which we will all try to defend the best the idea we have been called to defend.

Now, the issue is to find the good debate idea.

 

[ltcoljt]

Debate topics should probably be stated as a proposition. Example: We propose that Social Security benefits be means tested.

Of course that would take a lot of research if it were structured as a policy debate.

 

[Peri]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer

Things you should never use :

1- Insults.

2- Personal attacks.

3- Whinings and such. Actually, I'm a pro to always say "I felt insulted by what you just said"... I know I shouldn't do so, but when it's getting too emotional, I can't help it. I must change that since it's truely annoying to everyone.

Perhaps this should be stickied since a lot of people need to heed this advice.

 

[Free Enterprise]

Jormurgandr, that is a very interesting link.

 

[jpowers]

If you weigh 500 pounds and are of the genus Gorilla, you will win any debate.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

In terms of oratory, there are three important issues - the substance of what is said, the clear order and structure of this matter, and the style and manner in which it is delivered.

have a clear open manner to the audience, and maintain general eye contact, with specific focus on key members/areas to highlight a particular point. Pacing, a clear ringing voice and making the best utilization of the cadences of words and language are all most advantageous areas to master.

Do not move about in the manner of film lawyers, nor fidget nor sway. Use the space you are in effectively. Use gestures if you can incorporate them smoothly and properly. Practice the speech/argument, and its delivery, including potential use of gestures. Use humour with caution and discretion, particularly if it is of a cliched nature, or of your own crafting.

In competition debating, rebuttal and other points will have to be made up at short notice. Use these points first before getting on with the body of your own argument. Clearly signpost the argument, so that the audience and any adjudication panel can follow the flow of your case.
In such competition debating, argument using examples is far better than rhetorical flourishes.

Under different circumstances, more in the realm of public speaking, then a different style is appropriate. Tailor your style and approach to your circumstances, the topic, and the audience. Watch footage of the great orators of the 20th century, but do not copy them verbatim; rather, pick up on relevant strategies that they employ.

It is no good given an empassioned and violently rhetorical address in the manner of the Fuhrer at the Nuremburg Rallies when you are engaged in a factual debate on rather obscure area of policy in a smallish room to a neutral audience. Rather, take his general tactic of starting slow, low and restrained, and building up into a frenzy, and apply it to your situation; start off with a measured delivery of facts, and increase the volume and intensity of your delivery somewhat towards the end, and incorporate a certain drama to your concluding remarks. Differently from the Fuhrer though, conclude quietly, wrapping up your argument with an appropriate phrase of summary or reinforcement.