What makes a good debater/arguer?

[RedRalph]

Now as we all know I'm fully convinced by my own opinions and defend them passionately, and sometimes even aggressively. Like several other posters, I'm willing to go back and forth over a point when I'm convinced I'm right.

However, me and those posters almost never convince people of our viewpoints. People rarely if ever come round to agree with the likes of me, MobBoss, Dom3K, Richard Cribb and so on. Less boorish, quieter posters occasionally do win people over though. Now this says nothing about the 'correctness' of our views, but it does say a lot about our abilities to sway people.

So what are the essential qualities of a good arguer/debater?

 

[Glassfan]

Mastering the information.
Reasonable presentation.

 

[LucyDuke]

Someone who uses facts to back up their arguments. Someone who will accept facts that disprove his arguments and admit that he was wrong. Basically, if you're not open to the possibility that you're wrong, you're not arguing, you're preaching, and that's boring.

 

[Tani Coyote]

1. Remaining calm, of course. However, you should be forgiven if the person tests your patience. It's hard to keep composure if the other person is deliberately antagonising.

2. Being able to admit you're wrong. I was wrong about the death penalty being cheaper than life, just as many archconservatives are wrong that collecting welfare means you're lazy. Being able to admit your mistakes is a desirable quality since our brains seemed to be hardwired to make it super difficult.

3. Remaining openminded and being able to look at several sources rather than you know, saying "leftist" or "right-wing" bias exists. It's a lot better to get information from multiple sources anyway; always assume the person presenting it has an agenda and thus will spin it.

4. With the above, always be willing to quote sources, especially one that suits your opponent's bias.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Someone who uses facts to back up their arguments. Someone who will accept facts that disprove his arguments and admit that he was wrong. Basically, if you're not open to the possibility that you're wrong, you're not arguing, you're preaching, and that's boring.

Exactly . Surely the ultimate purpose of debate is to hopefully learn something new

 

[G-Max]

1) Knowing as much as possible about the subject being debated, and being able to point out when your opponent's information is wrong.
2) The ability to use sound logic, not succumb to fallacies, and point out when your opponent is using fallacies.
3) As others have said, the ability to admit when you are wrong

 

[azzaman333]

The unshakable belief that you're right.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Someone who uses facts to back up their arguments. Someone who will accept facts that disprove his arguments and admit that he was wrong. Basically, if you're not open to the possibility that you're wrong, you're not arguing, you're preaching, and that's boring.

Yeap. I agree, you should first of all be concern in finding the truth not of convincing somebody else. If you convince yourself of something- thats enough.

 

[ArneHD]

A reputation for being right. How you gain such a reputation is left as an exercise for the viewers.

 

[Alassius]

1. Know what you're talking about.
2. Know that your opponent isn't wrong, he's just seeing things differently.
3. Except for trolls. Trolls are trolls because they are wrong. And if they are wrong, you can show them where they are wrong. If you can't, see #2.
4. Be articulate, keep it plain and simple. Writing a wall of text isn't hard. Writing a wall of text that people can understand is.
5. Learn your fallacies, though don't be too tempted to accuse your opponent. Again see #2.
6. Stay on topic - easier said than done.

 

[LucyDuke]

Another thing to not do: pick apart an opponent's argument into little pieces and attack those while ignoring the thrust of the argument. That derails the discussion and it is boring.

 

[Arakhor]

It says nothing about your actual moral character, either.

 

[G-Max]

Another thing to not do: pick apart an opponent's argument into little pieces and attack those while ignoring the thrust of the argument. That derails the discussion and it is boring.

How can an argument be correct if it's made of incorrect pieces? Point-by-point rebuttals are the most sophisticated form of debate.

 

[RedRalph]

Another thing to not do: pick apart an opponent's argument into little pieces and attack those while ignoring the thrust of the argument. That derails the discussion and it is boring.

Agreed, and unfortunately that's something i do a fair bit.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The ability to actually identify the crux of a disagreement.

 

[Arakhor]

How can an argument be correct if it's made of incorrect pieces? Point-by-point rebuttals are the most sophisticated form of debate.

They're the most boring part of a debate. Debates are about competing arguments, not victimising debaters for tiny holes. At that point, you're a politician.

 

[emzie]

The ability to actually identify the crux of a disagreement.

And being able to stay on track. It's one of my laments that I'm very easily led down tangents.

How can an argument be correct if it's made of incorrect pieces? Point-by-point rebuttals are the most sophisticated form of debate.

If those pieces are relied upon for the rest of the argument, it's good debating to debunk them. Once you've destroyed a postulate, you've destroyed the whole argument. Continuing debunking pieces of it is at best, pedantic and at worse, lets the poster respond to your own minor points to reassert their argument as a whole.

 

[Bill3000]

3) As others have said, the ability to admit when you are wrong

Generally speaking, ignoring people with whom you're arguing with tends to undermine this ability.

 

[Arwon]

Denying the premise!

Multi-layered "even-if" rebuttal!

 

[Masada]

Ignoring whatever G-Max has to say is a good place to start.

Moderator Action: Trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889