Winning Debates

[INRM]

Firstly, I'm not necessarily articulate enough to hold my own in a debate. Given a few hours to compose something I usually am okay, but when it requires fast acting I'm not so good. Where would you go to help build such articulation skills?

[Beelzebuddy]

I'd honestly suggest 4chan. Two good lessons to be taken from there:

1) A humorous bon mot that's 80% right will be digested more readily than a long, exact and exacting diatribe.

2) Get over yourself. Put your ego on the line and they will happily rip you a new one.

Given your particular proclivities, they may additionally be able to beat the luddism out of you. You'll find them much less understanding of baseless paranoia than our bunch here.

[MNBrant]

I was never on a debate team but I hung out with them. What do you want to know?

[INRM]

Beelzebuddy

Get over yourself. Put your ego on the line and they will happily rip you a new one.

I'm not concerned about humiliation; I'm simply concerned about being able to quickly come up with something to say in reply -- I don't like being at a loss for words at a crucial point in the debate

Given your particular proclivities, they may additionally be able to beat the luddism out of you.

I'm not a luddite, I don't hate or fear all technology; I do believe certain technological developments have serious potentials for danger in regards to civil liberties violations.

You'll find them much less understanding of baseless paranoia than our bunch here.

Why would I join a group of people who would make me miserable?


MNBrant

I was never on a debate team but I hung out with them. What do you want to know?

I need to be quicker in online discussions -- I don't like being caught at a loss for words.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The better rehearsed you are on the topic, the better debater you can be. I find this forum is great for refining my own arguments.

[MNBrant]

Beelzebuddy



I'm not concerned about humiliation; I'm simply concerned about being able to quickly come up with something to say in reply -- I don't like being at a loss for words at a crucial point in the debate



I'm not a luddite, I don't hate or fear all technology; I do believe certain technological developments have serious potentials for danger in regards to civil liberties violations.



Why would I join a group of people who would make me miserable?


MNBrant



I need to be quicker in online discussions -- I don't like being caught at a loss for words.

Your doing well. When in doubt google. its best to google far ahead of time way way in the back section so they don't know what you are doing. A lot of stuff isnt on the net so if you want to mystify them read stuff thats really really hard to find. I often used phrases from Aristotles topics. You want to get their heads nodding even though they have no idea what you are talking about.

[INRM]

MNBrant

Your doing well. When in doubt google. its best to google far ahead of time way way in the back section so they don't know what you are doing. A lot of stuff isnt on the net so if you want to mystify them read stuff thats really really hard to find. I often used phrases from Aristotles topics. You want to get their heads nodding even though they have no idea what you are talking about.

Make them spend half an hour finding stuff to slow them down while I can use this time lag to mentally maneuver myself into a position of advantage?

[MNBrant]

MNBrant



Make them spend half an hour finding stuff to slow them down while I can use this time lag to mentally maneuver myself into a position of advantage?

Yeah it helps also to go right off the net and find books that no professor in his right mind would teach. people write lots of books and only a few of them are used over and over. Find the ones that aren't even in the library and use references from them repeatedly. Force them to stay on topic.

[INRM]

MNBrant

Yeah

Understood

Force them to stay on topic.

Makes sense... now here's a good question -- how do you avoid another person pulling you onto a topic that you will probably lose? I generally try and avoid such topics since I realize it's not possible to win that argument.


BTW: Is it ever acceptable to adopt the strategy "First win the argument; then try and figure out how to be right"?

[theprestige]

Your doing well. When in doubt google. its best to google far ahead of time way way in the back section so they don't know what you are doing. A lot of stuff isnt on the net so if you want to mystify them read stuff thats really really hard to find. I often used phrases from Aristotles topics. You want to get their heads nodding even though they have no idea what you are talking about.

MNBrant



Make them spend half an hour finding stuff to slow them down while I can use this time lag to mentally maneuver myself into a position of advantage?

Yeah it helps also to go right off the net and find books that no professor in his right mind would teach. people write lots of books and only a few of them are used over and over. Find the ones that aren't even in the library and use references from them repeatedly. Force them to stay on topic.

MNBrant



Understood



Makes sense... now here's a good question -- how do you avoid another person pulling you onto a topic that you will probably lose? I generally try and avoid such topics since I realize it's not possible to win that argument.

Anybody have any popcorn?

[MNBrant]

MNBrant



Understood



Makes sense... now here's a good question -- how do you avoid another person pulling you onto a topic that you will probably lose? I generally try and avoid such topics since I realize it's not possible to win that argument.


BTW: Is it ever acceptable to adopt the strategy "First win the argument; then try and figure out how to be right"?

Wow, picking the losing argument and making it a winner. Let me pick a loser (Newt Gingrich), and try to make him a winner. I know of nothing good about him. **** this is hard. Ok, well, he's an anti communist from the cold war. Fmr. Speaker Newt Gingrich could make America safe by restructuring our nations intelligence network to stop terrorism and make America strong again. Let the debate begin! keep in mind I am working at a considerable handicap but I don't mind losing.

[Floyt]

BTW: Is it ever acceptable to adopt the strategy "First win the argument; then try and figure out how to be right"?

That priority would make you a demagogue, and usually incapable of accepting that an opponent actually has the rights of something. People who put too much effort into the tricks of argumentation, to the detriment of understanding an issue, generally come over as biased and untrustworthy, if skillful. Think Slytherin.

You can see many a discussion on this very board heading in that direction once the participants start getting off on the reply-to-individual-sentences-times-20 track, rather than posting well-considered longer arguments.

Debating clubs can make you skillful, but they also can teach you argumentation tech abuse.

[Aepervius]

The better rehearsed you are on the topic, the better debater you can be. I find this forum is great for refining my own arguments.

The few debate I had in school and university environment, taught me one thing : it does not matter how well articulated your opponent is (or you are), the one side for which the crowd and already preconceived belief will "win" the debate in their mind. And very simple play word without substance made me "win" a few debate.

Think about it : who do you think will be cheered in a church debate at the cathedral of Paris with the pope and Dawkins , if the majority are theist and even if the pope has poor arguments ?

Now debate with a judging panel which has to justify its judgement is another story.

[MNBrant]

The few debate I had in school and university environment, taught me one thing : it does not matter how well articulated your opponent is (or you are), the one side for which the crowd and already preconceived belief will "win" the debate in their mind. And very simple play word without substance made me "win" a few debate.

Think about it : who do you think will be cheered in a church debate at the cathedral of Paris with the pope and Dawkins , if the majority are theist and even if the pope has poor arguments ?

Now debate with a judging panel which has to justify its judgement is another story.

The ones I hate are the weakest link people. They ignore your arguement for the perceived weakest link regardless of whether the weakest link is a red herring or not.

[Rocko]

Honestly, it's quite hard. As observed above, people tend to have made their mind up very early on, and swaying them from that is difficult.

You're also dependent on the other person being honest - in an oral debate it's very easy to just invent stats or other evidence on the fly to support your case.

However, three things will stand you in good stead:

i) know your stuff. Research ahead of time, and know the arguments in favour of your position, as well as the evidence to back them up.
ii) more importantly, know the arguments normally used *against* your position, as well as the evidence used to back *them* up. Have your rebuttals ready and primed to knock them back when they're trotted out. Conversely, prepare for commonly used rebuttals of your evidence in favour of your position.
iii) stick to what you want to say. Don't get sidetracked, don't get cross. Just deal with the issues.

That's really all you can do.

[INRM]

The Prestige

Anybody have any popcorn?

Nope


MNBrant

Wow, picking the losing argument and making it a winner.

Not exactly, it's more like doing an immoral act for a moral purpose. Sometimes you need to refute something a person says, you can't necessarily figure out the right way to refute it, but it nonetheless needs to be refuted; so you simply try and figure out some way to refute the argument whether it's right or wrong; once you've succeeded in shutting your opponent down, you then start figuring out how to advance an argument that's actually right.

It's not a primary argument strategy. It's more like an emergency strategy.


Floyt

That priority would make you a demagogue, and usually incapable of accepting that an opponent actually has the rights of something.

Well, I care about right and wrong and I am concerned with the truth. Sometimes though somebody advances a bad argument that needs to be immediately defeated.

People who put too much effort into the tricks of argumentation, to the detriment of understanding an issue, generally come over as biased and untrustworthy, if skillful. Think Slytherin.

I don't know who Slytherin is

You can see many a discussion on this very board heading in that direction once the participants start getting off on the reply-to-individual-sentences-times-20 track, rather than posting well-considered longer arguments.

Actually, I do generally prefer to respond to paragraphs, or a couple of sentences to effectively allow me to respond to individual issues one by one.

Debating clubs can make you skillful, but they also can teach you argumentation tech abuse.

Really?


Aepervius

The few debate I had in school and university environment, taught me one thing : it does not matter how well articulated your opponent is (or you are), the one side for which the crowd and already preconceived belief will "win" the debate in their mind.

So, if you're bent on winning at any cost, the trick is to find crowds that hold your view and play to it?

And very simple play word without substance made me "win" a few debate.

What kind of play word without substance are you talking about?

Think about it : who do you think will be cheered in a church debate at the cathedral of Paris with the pope and Dawkins , if the majority are theist and even if the pope has poor arguments ?

Probably the Pope

Now debate with a judging panel which has to justify its judgement is another story.

Of course, because they are aware of the various manipulation strategies and appeals to emotion.


MNBrant

The ones I hate are the weakest link people. They ignore your arguement for the perceived weakest link regardless of whether the weakest link is a red herring or not.

You mean they focus on the weakest link in the argument, then focus on it to poke a hole in the argument, then use that as the basis to cast aspersions on the rest of the argument with the aim of invalidating the whole argument?

I've seen that strategy used a lot on this forum.


Rocko

Honestly, it's quite hard. As observed above, people tend to have made their mind up very early on, and swaying them from that is difficult.

Yeah, I know. I'm a member of a forum which consist of a bunch of right-wing nuts who are completely unreasonable. I can't think of how to either get through to them.

Are there any ways to sway such people, or manipulate such people into supporting your view? What tactics typically work on right-wing authoritarian types?

[OnlyTellsTruths]

BTW: Is it ever acceptable to adopt the strategy "First win the argument; then try and figure out how to be right"?

In reality it is even simpler and more dishonest than that:

You don't ever have to be right, you just have to portray the "other side" as wrong.

I find this exchange (from the decent movie "Thank You For Smoking") to be a very good explanation of this:

(all bolding done by me)

[Nick Naylor and his son arguing about ice cream]

Joey: So, what happens when you're wrong?
Nick: Well, Joey, I'm never wrong.

Joey: But you can't always be right.
Nick: Well, if it's your job to be right, then you're never wrong.

Joey: But what if you are wrong?
Nick: Okay, let's say that you're defending chocolate and I'm defending vanilla. Now, if I were to say to you, "Vanilla's the best flavor ice cream", you'd say …?

Joey: "No, chocolate is."
Nick: Exactly. But you can't win that argument. So, I'll ask you: So you think chocolate is the end-all and be-all of ice cream, do you?

Joey: It's the best ice cream; I wouldn't order any other.
Nick: Oh. So it's all chocolate for you, is it?

Joey: Yes, chocolate is all I need.
Nick: Well, I need more than chocolate. And for that matter, I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom and choice when it comes to our ice cream, and that, Joey Naylor, that is the definition of liberty.

Joey: But that's not what we're talking about.
Nick: Ah, but that's what I'm talking about.

Joey: But … you didn't prove that vanilla's the best.
Nick: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong, I'm right.

Joey: But you still didn't convince me.
Nick: Because I'm not after you. I'm after them.

[INRM]

Okay, I'm having a debate on a forum where I'm talking about how cyber security is basically being used as a guise to justify domestic spying. Recently the CIA website, the Senate webpage, was hacked, and then after that the same hacking group stole all of the UK's census data.

My premise is that there are better ways to provide cyber security without such intrusive ideas. I've heard various computer experts say this, but at this time I can't seem to find anything as I speak.

Now the question is what would allow an adequate level of cyber security of critical infrastructure to be achieved without having the NSA and Cyber Command using performing massive automated surveillance and datamining of all internet traffic?

[OnlyTellsTruths]

I'm pretty sure you are changing the topic (In your own thread no less :)).

To keep my response on topic, just remember, like we told you above, you could very well be in an un-winnable debate if either side isn't playing fairly. (Not dependent upon whether or not you are "correct"*.)

*Also remember that sometimes (read: usually) there isn't always a binary right/wrong, but a broad spectrum of possibilities.

[Beerina]

"Look at history. Government is guilty until proven innocent."

[stokes234]

Okay, I'm having a debate on a forum where I'm talking about how cyber security is basically being used as a guise to justify domestic spying. Recently the CIA website, the Senate webpage, was hacked, and then after that the same hacking group stole all of the UK's census data.

Actually, they're denying being behind any census hit, and the police are saying they have no evidence census data was taken.

[Aepervius]

Aepervius
So, if you're bent on winning at any cost, the trick is to find crowds that hold your view and play to it?


It could be a tactic, but usually it happens the other way around, the crowd just happens to have a preconceived notion, and the debate is organized there wihout afterthought, but knowng your crowd and what they can readily accept is certainly a big plus.


What kind of play word without substance are you talking about?


Depends on the situation, can be well disguised appeal to emotion, or other fallacy, which appeal to our common sense. Also joking at the depend on what your opponent is trying to defend. A bon mot at the correct moment can sway a less sofisticated crowd (but would probably fall flat on much more sofisticated crowd).


Probably the Pope


Exactely. I will one up that : even if the pope was making fart joke, with certain crowd it would still be him winning.


Of course, because they are aware of the various manipulation strategies and appeals to emotion.


And indeed very few of the debate I watched were free of them, but MANY of them they swayed the crowd. OK albeit that was pre-university, so that's probably not the majority and rather anecdotial.

[Alan]

Learn the 'other side's' arguments and information and make up the strongest case for them being right that you can. Investigate your own arguments and try to destroy them. Figure out which one you think is really correct.

You are much less likely to be at a loss for words in a debate, if you make it to a debate.

And you might not make it to the debate if you figure out that they were right in the first place.

[Robin]

Firstly, I'm not necessarily articulate enough to hold my own in a debate. Given a few hours to compose something I usually am okay, but when it requires fast acting I'm not so good. Where would you go to help build such articulation skills?
I remember once in high school we went to see the seniors debate and the first speaker for the affirmative was this very attractive girl who kind of swayed her hips (not extravagantly so) as she talked and the judges were all men and you could see their heads just move with her movements.

She talked absolute rubbish and her team won hands down.

That is how you win a debate.

[INRM]

Beerina

"Look at history. Government is guilty until proven innocent."

I had suspected this. So LulzSec is kind of like what Marinus van der Lubbe was in the Reichstag fire?


Robin

She talked absolute rubbish and her team won hands down.

That is how you win a debate.

So, I need to hire a model to articulate my arguments and I win?

[INRM]

On another forum this topic came up which is why I posted it on the USA Politics forum.

Title: Joe Lieberman bill would strip suspects' citizenship
URL: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36741.html

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) thinks he’s found a work-around on the whole Miranda rights debate for U.S. citizens accused of terrorism: Strip their citizenship and ship them to Guantanamo.

What arguments would you use to claim this argument is wrong? My guess is that if the government/president has the power to arbitrarily waive the citizenship (and Constitutional rights) of an American citizen, doesn't that effectively defeat the whole US Constitution?

[MNBrant]

I remember once in high school we went to see the seniors debate and the first speaker for the affirmative was this very attractive girl who kind of swayed her hips (not extravagantly so) as she talked and the judges were all men and you could see their heads just move with her movements.

She talked absolute rubbish and her team won hands down.

That is how you win a debate.

I don't know, I won a debate against a woman with very large breasts and after I won she came over and started flirting with me despite the fact that I am very average. Thats high school for you.

[INRM]

MNBrant

So I can't just hire a model to articulate my debates huh?

[ufology]

Firstly, I'm not necessarily articulate enough to hold my own in a debate. Given a few hours to compose something I usually am okay, but when it requires fast acting I'm not so good. Where would you go to help build such articulation skills?


Practise ... practise ... practise.

The thing is, the goal of a debate really shouldn't be to win but to be the one to illuminate the truth. Try not to get bogged down by debater tricks and traps that lead you away from the topic and appeal to your emotions instead of the facts. Most of all, if someone wins fair and square, be a good sport about it.

j.r.

[Nursedan]

I'd say that the choice to comment on a particular matter is most important. If you have some background and an opinion about a particular matter, go ahead and begin a debate. At least you'll have some info you can fall back on. Don't get into a debate about something you don't understand.

[Foolmewunz]

I was never on a debate team but I hung out with them. What do you want to know?

How do you go from "just hanging out with the debating team" to having won debates and becoming an authority of finding obscure references to Aristotle, please?

At least tell impressionable posters that you're making **** up as you go along, okay?

[ufology]

This video is absolutely priceless when it comes to learning how to win arguments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

j.r.

[joy_division]

This video is absolutely priceless when it comes to learning how to win arguments.

Monty Python Video (can't post links, nor Quote them. :p)

j.r.

Before clicking that link I already knew it would be Monty Python, great scene indeed haha.

Debates about religion(based) subjects are kinda weird as arguments from 1 side usually are mostly based on facts and arguments from the other side are usually based mostly on feelings(Summarized it to that).

[Lord Emsworth]

This video is absolutely priceless when it comes to learning how to win arguments.

No, it isn't.

[Wudang]

Yep, if you want a resource try this http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rulebook-Arguments-Anthony-Weston/dp/0872205525
It's an excellent little book.
.

[Beerina]

I was never on a debate team but I hung out with them. What do you want to know?
http://forums.randi.org/customavatars/avatar49416_14.gif


Too busy with your "luge" lessons making meat helmets in Rangoon with "Wilma", no doubt. :rolleyes:

[JoeBentley]

Are we talking a debate or a discussion? Are we talking two people standing at podiums taking turns with points and counter points and a panel of judges awarding a winner based on a 10 point scale or a less formal discussion where two or more people that hold varying viewpoints talk about the various pros and cons of their respective positions?

As far as a discussion I would warn against going into such things with the mentality that its something you win in the same sense you win a tennis match. You can "win" an argument via all sorts of means that don't really help your position. On the internet especially 99% of all arguments are "won" by one side simply getting so frustrated with the other side that they give up.

"Winning" an argument is easy. Just pick one part of your opponents argument, take it out of context, and nitpick until they give up in frustration then declare yourself the winner because you got in the last word.

Actually successfully defending your position is a lot harder.

[INRM]

JoeBentley

Are we talking a debate or a discussion?

Mostly discussions

As far as a discussion I would warn against going into such things with the mentality that its something you win in the same sense you win a tennis match. You can "win" an argument via all sorts of means that don't really help your position. On the internet especially 99% of all arguments are "won" by one side simply getting so frustrated with the other side that they give up.

Or me getting banned...

"Winning" an argument is easy. Just pick one part of your opponents argument, take it out of context, and nitpick until they give up in frustration then declare yourself the winner because you got in the last word.

Some people are easier to take out of context than others; though in other cases this is actually a viable tactic which I've done, though in truth, I think I need to be better at finding holes in people's arguments.

Actually successfully defending your position is a lot harder.

Very true. My question is what constitutes successful? Do you have to be right, or does successful mean that you've effectively managed to convince your opponent that you're right through tricking or bamboozling them? (In most cases I prefer to be right, but sometimes I just want to get them to do things my way.)

[INRM]

Nobody?

[Joecool]

Firstly, I'm not necessarily articulate enough to hold my own in a debate. Given a few hours to compose something I usually am okay, but when it requires fast acting I'm not so good. Where would you go to help build such articulation skills?

Looks like this forum is a good place to start!

[ImaginalDisc]

How to be an articulate debater:

1. Examine the facts.

2. Draw your conclusion.

3. Explain your reasoning.

4. Consider how and why other people may disagree.

5. Address the points found in step 4.

6. Edit your statements for clarity and brevity. You should avoid embellishments that beat around the bush. Be brief. Be clear.

7. Open your mouth to talk.

Warning:

Do not perform step 7 without performing steps 1-6, in order.

Ever.

[ImaginalDisc]

This is some of the best speaking advice composed.

r2XkfBWSmcs

[UndercoverElephant]

Beelzebuddy

I'm not concerned about humiliation; I'm simply concerned about being able to quickly come up with something to say in reply -- I don't like being at a loss for words at a crucial point in the debate



Then you've misunderstood the point of debating. You appear to be trying to find some "tips and tricks" as to how to "win", in general, online debates. I see this all of the time - people who think the point is to win the debate regardless of the fact that they are lost of words at a crucial point.

If you are lost for words at a crucial point in a debate, then it is probably because you don't have a very good argument. It's probably because it is about time for you to say "OK, I'm not sure what my position is on this, I need to go away and think about it."

Sadly, most people's egos are too large for them to be able to do this, which means it takes them a very long time to actually learn anything.

The point in having a debate is only to win it if you really know your stuff, and you're right. If you really know your stuff, and you're right, then you will not be lost for words at a crucial point in the debate. Next time you are lost for words, stop trying to win the debate and start trying to figure out why you are lost for words. You do not appear to be accounting for the possibility that the reason you are lost for words is because you've got something wrong.

[INRM]

Okay, here's an example of what I want to do. There's a forum, and it's occupied by a bunch of right-wing nuts. The strategy when dealing with these people is

1.) Win by being right

2.) Barring that, win the argument through manipulation, deception, taking things out of context, sheer endurance; exploiting psychological characteristics that right-wing authoritarian types possess in order to give me an advantage over them in order to win the argument, refute the argument; then if that can be accomplished try and figure out some way to actually be right, or at least contort what you said into something that's remotely right.


For example the recent topics of debate include for example discussions about why torture is wrong. Whenever torture, indefinite detention, comes up, they justify it by claiming that the Geneva convention doesn't cover enemy combatants and they are entitled to whatever the President chooses to afford them. Of course the problem with this is

1.) Torture and deprivation of due process of law are against what America stands for

2.) I've been told there are provisions of international law that covered non uniformed individuals -- I simply can't find it.

3.) The military tribunals used are basically Kangaroo courts which was even said so by the former Chief Prosecutor, Colonel Mo Harris.

4.) What criteria does the President use to determine who is and who is not an enemy combatant? What keeps the President from labeling dissidents, citizens he doesn't like as being enemy combatants and rounding them up indefinitely?

Okay, I need something to refute this mentality: It's dangerous, it's against what we stand for.


INRM

[Wudang]

Next time you are lost for words, stop trying to win the debate and start trying to figure out why you are lost for words.

This bears repeating, well said.

[Beelzebuddy]

4. Consider how and why other people may disagree.
This. This so hard. Some people have a problem with this in real life as well as the internet. We call those people "********." "Assume I am right and you are wrong, then do whatever it takes to make you agree" is an approach which leads to terrible and useless shouting matches or fallacy-ridden dickwaving contests. Either way, not worth reading.

6. Be brief. Be clear.

Be ess. I'll take a rambling post filled with entertaining and humorous embellishments to a pithy little snippet of nerdrage any day. If you've got a knack for clever writing, abuse the hell out of it for the amusement of others. Keeps the argument from getting all srs bsns and makes it fun to read.

[ImaginalDisc]

Be ess. I'll take a rambling post filled with entertaining and humorous embellishments to a pithy little snippet of nerdrage any day. If you've got a knack for clever writing, abuse the hell out of it for the amusement of others. Keeps the argument from getting all srs bsns and makes it fun to read.

Long harangues full of pith, jibes, and humor are entertaining, but they're not persuasive. The longer you go on beyond the need to make your point, the more you will entertain yourself and others, but the more defensive you'll make the person you're arguing with.

It's only when the other person can at least concede you have a point that humor softens them up. If they see nothing funny about their position, you'll only upset them. That's fine if you want to make a mockery of them, but not if you want to make a friend of them.

[Beelzebuddy]

If they see nothing funny about their position, you'll only upset them.
If they're the type to get upset in an internet argument, we're talking actual rage here, I doubt I'd be able to persuade them at all, seeing as they clearly don't subscribe to your guideline 4. In which case the audience really is whom I'm talking to because the other guy isn't listening. Either way, I don't see much point in walking on eggshells.

[INRM]

Well, in relation to the argument I'm trying to win (among others); the reason they feel that torture and all that stuff is acceptable is because

1.) They are afraid of terrorism to the extent that they'll give up all their freedoms to do so.
- I personally disagree because I think that if you give up all your freedoms to be safe from an enemy, your government ends up being able to do anything it wants to you, which makes it more dangerous to it's people than the enemy was.

2.) They are people who tend to believe that the ends justify the means.
- I personally believe this is a strategy that tends to be indicative of a lack of morality
- I believe this strategy to be short-sighted and while it might work initially, there's always this fallout that tends to follow this mentality or at least repercussions that do not benefit most people.

3.) They tend to believe in the authoritarian approach


So, how do I do the following?

- Trick, manipulate, bamboozle them into supporting my point of view
- Make them look bad without appearing using ad-hominem attacks.
- Generate support for my cause


I could really use some help here.


ImaginalDisc

I have read what you said; I just want to be clear that I haven't just ignored you.

[Beelzebuddy]

Well, INRM, there are times where the only sane response is to shake your head sadly and walk away. Your situation sounds like the perfect time to do just that.

So, how do I do the following?
- Trick, manipulate, bamboozle them into supporting my point of view
- Make them look bad without appearing using ad-hominem attacks
- Generate support for my cause
Demagoguery should never be your goal.

Be the better man, and leave them to stew in their ignorance.

[MNBrant]

Looks like this forum is a good place to start!

Wow this discussion is still going on. To answer your question, I hung out with the debate team in my high school. When I took speech class we did debates. When the woman with very large breasts came over to talk to me my teacher was simply amazed. He asked her what she saw in me, to which she said, why is something wrong with him? He looked at me and said your a genius and made me a lead in his next play as he was also the head of the drama department. The was after the overdose so I had that cool incoherant drugged out look going for me. Kind of like Curt Cobain. Of course this is all true.

[Roboramma]

Very true. My question is what constitutes successful? Do you have to be right, or does successful mean that you've effectively managed to convince your opponent that you're right through tricking or bamboozling them? (In most cases I prefer to be right, but sometimes I just want to get them to do things my way.)

I'd say that a successful discussion is one in which one party, both, or at least one onlooker, learns something.

When I post here it's usually because I think I'm aware of something that others are not, and I want to point that out, or because my understanding of a subject is not very clear and I want to improve it.

Trying to "win" doesn't really do anyone any good, and in fact can be actively detrimental. You may, for instance, intentionally obfuscate an issue in an attempt to "defeat" you opponent. What does that serve to do? Nothing more than increase the level of ignorance in the world.

[ImaginalDisc]

If they're the type to get upset in an internet argument, we're talking actual rage here, I doubt I'd be able to persuade them at all, seeing as they clearly don't subscribe to your guideline 4. In which case the audience really is whom I'm talking to because the other guy isn't listening. Either way, I don't see much point in walking on eggshells.

There's two purposes to being brief, clear, and calm.

The first is obvious, you're trying to persuade the person you're talking to. If you delivery quick and informative replies you look like you know what you're talking about to them.

The second reason is less obvious. The people who observe the discussion will be more likely to consider you rational if you remain polite and calm. Let the other person sputter and snap at you. To everyone else, you'll look like you're winning gracefully.

[UndercoverElephant]

Okay, here's an example of what I want to do. There's a forum, and it's occupied by a bunch of right-wing nuts. The strategy when dealing with these people is

1.) Win by being right


It is not easy to win a political debate by "being right". There are often no wrongs and rights in politics. It boils down to personal ethics and emotions. Right-wingers tend to believe things I find obnoxious, but that doesn't mean I can prove them "wrong."


2.) Barring that, win the argument through manipulation, deception, taking things out of context, sheer endurance; exploiting psychological characteristics that right-wing authoritarian types possess in order to give me an advantage over them in order to win the argument, refute the argument; then if that can be accomplished try and figure out some way to actually be right, or at least contort what you said into something that's remotely right.


You are wasting your time, and probably likely to give yourself high blood pressure. Who are you arguing for? Yourself? The people you are arguing with? The audience? If it is yourself, then what is the point in winning an argument by foul means? What would you have achieved? Do you really think you can change their minds by "winning" by manipulation? Do you think the audience will be impressed?


For example the recent topics of debate include for example discussions about why torture is wrong. Whenever torture, indefinite detention, comes up, they justify it by claiming that the Geneva convention doesn't cover enemy combatants and they are entitled to whatever the President chooses to afford them. Of course the problem with this is

1.) Torture and deprivation of due process of law are against what America stands for


"What America stands for" is debatable. It is not an establishable fact.


2.) I've been told there are provisions of international law that covered non uniformed individuals -- I simply can't find it.


Then how do you know that the person who told you was correct?


3.) The military tribunals used are basically Kangaroo courts which was even said so by the former Chief Prosecutor, Colonel Mo Harris.

4.) What criteria does the President use to determine who is and who is not an enemy combatant? What keeps the President from labeling dissidents, citizens he doesn't like as being enemy combatants and rounding them up indefinitely?

Okay, I need something to refute this mentality: It's dangerous, it's against what we stand for.


You can't refute somebody's mentality. You can only refute arguments which are illogical or based on incorrect assumptions/premises.

If you are just having a private discussion about this then you are likely to end up banging your head against a wall. The right-winger is no more likely to change his/her mind than you are. So the only point in trying to "win" the discussion is when it is in public, and then the point is to attempt to divert neutrals in the audience towards your position and away from those of the right-winger. You will not achieve this by trying to manipulate people or "win" by foul means. People will see you are doing this, and will be more likely to side with the opposition.

In short, if you think you can "win" at this game then you are playing at being a politician. That's fine, just so long as you recognise that politics is all about emotions, lies and manipulation, unlike science or philosophy.

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, INRM, there are times where the only sane response is to shake your head sadly and walk away. Your situation sounds like the perfect time to do just that.


Demagoguery should never be your goal.

Be the better man, and leave them to stew in their ignorance.

Yes. Sounds like a pointless waste of time to me.

The reason we have multiple political parties is that everybody is not going to agree with each other about politics.

[MNBrant]

It is not easy to win a political debate by "being right". There are often no wrongs and rights in politics. It boils down to personal ethics and emotions. Right-wingers tend to believe things I find obnoxious, but that doesn't mean I can prove them "wrong."



You are wasting your time, and probably likely to give yourself high blood pressure. Who are you arguing for? Yourself? The people you are arguing with? The audience? If it is yourself, then what is the point in winning an argument by foul means? What would you have achieved? Do you really think you can change their minds by "winning" by manipulation? Do you think the audience will be impressed?



"What America stands for" is debatable. It is not an establishable fact.



Then how do you know that the person who told you was correct?



You can't refute somebody's mentality. You can only refute arguments which are illogical or based on incorrect assumptions/premises.

If you are just having a private discussion about this then you are likely to end up banging your head against a wall. The right-winger is no more likely to change his/her mind than you are. So the only point in trying to "win" the discussion is when it is in public, and then the point is to attempt to divert neutrals in the audience towards your position and away from those of the right-winger. You will not achieve this by trying to manipulate people or "win" by foul means. People will see you are doing this, and will be more likely to side with the opposition.

In short, if you think you can "win" at this game then you are playing at being a politician. That's fine, just so long as you recognise that politics is all about emotions, lies and manipulation, unlike science or philosophy.

Wrong, people are always referring to my mentality when they are unable to rebut my arguement. Being right never hurts in the long run even though no one is likely to check your facts. A good way to win an arguement is to demonize your position and show extreme fear of it. When the opponent wins the arguement you thank him or her or it very much for winning and move on. You may or may not then tell them your real position.

[INRM]

Beelzebuddy

Demagoguery should never be your goal.

Even if the opponent's argument needs to be refuted?


Roboramma

Trying to "win" doesn't really do anyone any good, and in fact can be actively detrimental. You may, for instance, intentionally obfuscate an issue in an attempt to "defeat" you opponent. What does that serve to do? Nothing more than increase the level of ignorance in the world.

I never said I was trying to increase ignorance -- in fact my intention was to defeat theirs.


Imaginal Disc

The first is obvious, you're trying to persuade the person you're talking to.

Being persuasive is hard, and it's not something I'm very good at (I think we've all established that). I know some obvious basics, such as not saying: "I think anybody who thinks that torture is acceptable, that jailing people forever without due process is a good idea is either stupid, ignorant, mentally ill or just ******* evil".

If you delivery quick and informative replies you look like you know what you're talking about to them.

So be brief and informative, don't go on and on?

The second reason is less obvious. The people who observe the discussion will be more likely to consider you rational if you remain polite and calm. Let the other person sputter and snap at you. To everyone else, you'll look like you're winning gracefully.

Yeah, I'm usually the one who gets exasperated. So at all times I should stay cool and calm. The trick is to get the other person to sputter and snap -- are there any traditional buttons to push among right-wing authoritarians to get them to snap?


Undercover Elephant

It is not easy to win a political debate by "being right". There are often no wrongs and rights in politics. It boils down to personal ethics and emotions.

Okay, so how do I play their emotions to my advantage?

Right-wingers tend to believe things I find obnoxious, but that doesn't mean I can prove them "wrong."

How do you make them look ridiculous then?

You are wasting your time, and probably likely to give yourself high blood pressure.

Actually, my blood pressure is like 115/75, virtually ideal.

Do you really think you can change their minds by "winning" by manipulation?

How do you win hearts and minds?

Do you think the audience will be impressed?

If I refute certain people to the extent that they look ridiculous, it is possible that other people would turn agains them.

"What America stands for" is debatable. It is not an establishable fact.

Well, there is the Constitution and numerous statements by our Founding Fathers that do establish certain values for our country. Regardless, there are various Americans who do hold a variety of views which have changed over the years -- but the thing is in a debate; they're not supposed to know that.

You make a premise, then massage the facts to meet the premise as to refute the other person and make them look ridiculous. This is then used as the basis to turn other people against them. Evidently if you prove a person wrong, most operate under the view that you're right (even though this is definitely not always the case).

Then how do you know that the person who told you was correct?

I think this was mentioned on a civil liberties website though I cannot find the article.

So the only point in trying to "win" the discussion is when it is in public, and then the point is to attempt to divert neutrals in the audience towards your position and away from those of the right-winger.

Well all my discussions are on forums

You will not achieve this by trying to manipulate people or "win" by foul means. People will see you are doing this, and will be more likely to side with the opposition.

Even if doing so makes the right-winger look ridiculous?

[Chaos]

Beelzebuddy



Even if the opponent's argument needs to be refuted?

Arguments only need to be refuted if they´re wrong, in which case demagoguery is unnecessary.

[ImaginalDisc]

Beelzebuddy


Imaginal Disc



Being persuasive is hard, and it's not something I'm very good at (I think we've all established that). I know some obvious basics, such as not saying: "I think anybody who thinks that torture is acceptable, that jailing people forever without due process is a good idea is either stupid, ignorant, mentally ill or just ******* evil".



So be brief and informative, don't go on and on?



Yeah, I'm usually the one who gets exasperated. So at all times I should stay cool and calm. The trick is to get the other person to sputter and snap -- are there any traditional buttons to push among right-wing authoritarians to get them to snap?


Don't bait your opponent. Don't mock them. Don't sneer.

Just stay cool, articulate, and thoughtful.

Always think carefully and systematically before you speak. Doing so makes you look smart and convincing. Don't try to manipulate the other person into looking bad, they'll probably handle that all by themselves.

[UndercoverElephant]

Undercover Elephant

Okay, so how do I play their emotions to my advantage?

How do you make them look ridiculous then?

Actually, my blood pressure is like 115/75, virtually ideal.

How do you win hearts and minds?

Even if doing so makes the right-winger look ridiculous?

You may have to accept that you can't do any of these things. If somebody is politically right wing then they are politically right wing. They can say things that look ridiculous to you, but don't look ridiculous to other right-wingers.

You seem to be on a one-man mission to change the left/right balance of US politics. Good luck....

[Roboramma]

Roboramma



I never said I was trying to increase ignorance -- in fact my intention was to defeat theirs.


I didn't suggest that increasing ignorance was your intention, I said that it would be the outcome of your strategy. And because you don't seem to want to increase ignorance, perhaps you should consider changing your strategy.

[blobru]

Then you've misunderstood the point of debating. You appear to be trying to find some "tips and tricks" as to how to "win", in general, online debates. I see this all of the time - people who think the point is to win the debate regardless of the fact that they are lost of words at a crucial point.

If you are lost for words at a crucial point in a debate, then it is probably because you don't have a very good argument. It's probably because it is about time for you to say "OK, I'm not sure what my position is on this, I need to go away and think about it."

Sadly, most people's egos are too large for them to be able to do this, which means it takes them a very long time to actually learn anything.

The point in having a debate is only to win it if you really know your stuff, and you're right. If you really know your stuff, and you're right, then you will not be lost for words at a crucial point in the debate. Next time you are lost for words, stop trying to win the debate and start trying to figure out why you are lost for words. You do not appear to be accounting for the possibility that the reason you are lost for words is because you've got something wrong.


Excellent post; though, to be a blithering nitpicking pedant about it, it sounds like you're describing philosophical dialogue more so than debate (though they're variously defined, many make 'winning' the goal of debate). Personally, I enjoy dialogue more than debate, and wish there were more of it online; as well, more ease going back and forth and even merging the two. But that's a skill I'm working on myself, with frequent setbacks, so I can't criticize others too severely. :o

[citizenzen]

I'm not concerned about humiliation; I'm simply concerned about being able to quickly come up with something to say in reply -- I don't like being at a loss for words at a crucial point in the debate


Therein lies a big part of the problem.

We're so enamored with the quick reply that we overlook the value of silent contemplation, of not knowing, of admitting that we need to look more deeply into a subject before offering an opinion.

I'd suggest that you not struggle when you find yourself at a loss for words. That you instead pause. And if no words come, simply say, "You've given me some food for thought. I'm going to think this over for a while and get back to you."

[Wuglife]

My opinion is that when you're debating, you'll likely do well to avoid logical fallacies, and stick to the facts as much as possible.

If you have real, objective facts on your side, your opponent will have to either concede your point, or make a fool of themself by trying to deny reality.

[Wuglife]

Therein lies a big part of the problem.

We're so enamored with the quick reply that we overlook the value of silent contemplation, of not knowing, of admitting that we need to look more deeply into a subject before offering an opinion.

I'd suggest that you not struggle when you find yourself at a loss for words. That you instead pause. And if no words come, simply say, "You've given me some food for thought. I'm going to think this over for a while and get back to you."

Wise words; I agree.

[Robin]

I don't know, I won a debate against a woman with very large breasts and after I won she came over and started flirting with me despite the fact that I am very average. Thats high school for you.
That was her mistake - she should have flirted with the judges.

[Turgor]

6. Edit your statements for clarity and brevity. You should avoid embellishments that beat around the bush. Be brief. Be clear.

This is perhaps one of the most important skills in a debate. Not just to get your point across in an efficient manner, but also to allow your opponent to have something to argue against. Arguing against a "wall-o-waffle" is quite pointless if that wall could be condensed to a single sentence statement.