Debating Strategies

Recommended Videos

Specter Von Baren

Annoying Green Gadfly
Legacy
Aug 25, 2013
5,637
2,862
118
I don't know, send help!
Country
USA
Gender
Cuttlefish
What are some of your strategies when debating?

What I mean is, when you are debating with someone over something, how do you usually explain your argument? Are you more of a passionate debater or do you tend to keep a cool head? Are you someone that usually concedes a point when someone shows you are wrong? Or do you keep moving with what they haven't shown to be wrong?

Things like that.
 

Legion

Were it so easy
Oct 2, 2008
7,186
0
0
Specter Von Baren said:
What are some of your strategies when debating? What I mean is, when you are debating with someone over something, how do you usually explain your argument?
My title is pretty much it. I am a compare-a-holic.

I tend to use examples along the lines of "What you say is similar to X". Unfortunately a lot of people cannot seem to understand that when I say that something or somebody has similarities is not the same as saying they are identical or condoning it if it happens to be a bad thing.

I like to use metaphors as well, but like the above people seem to take them too literally.

Are you more of a passionate debater or do you tend to keep a cool head?
I don't get emotional in online debates, I try and look at them from a detached perspective. Most of the time when I get involved in controversial subjects it is to try and get the people with more extreme views to consider the other side of the debate, I don't normally have any investment in the debate itself.

Although people normally seem to assume that not taking one side in a debate automatically means that you are on the other.

Are you someone that usually concedes a point when someone shows you are wrong? Or do you keep moving with what they haven't shown to be wrong?

Things like that.
I almost always concede and apologise if I genuinely think that I am wrong, unless I believe the person to have been particularly obnoxious about it. That said I very rarely get involved in heavy debates unless I believe I know what I am talking about, and as mentioned above my stance is normally in the middle of the debate so I don't often give my own opinions on matters.
 

McMullen

New member
Mar 9, 2010
1,334
0
0
Keeping a cool head should definitely be a goal. Becoming angry is almost never well-received by either your opponent or the audience. That's not to say you should be cold and distant, either. People are not often persuaded purely by facts or even by self-interest. They are most often persuaded by those they trust, and in order to establish that trust, you need to be calm, honest, and personable. Once you have that, then you can show that the facts are on your side and have it actually influence opinion.

This can work even on the Internet. You can get true believers to admit that they might be wrong, but it's a lot of work, and a prerequisite is that people have stopped shouting and sniping at each other. I've at least temporarily convinced a couple of Young-Earthers here that the Young-Earth model is not compatible with the scientific findings of the last few centuries. Calling a person stupid or uninformed is not the way to do it. Instead, you have to show them that what they were taught about science is wrong. I would often agree that evolution and other theories, according to what they were taught, could not work, but that those theories do not actually work the way they were taught. I would then show them how they actually work, and the evidence predicted by them. Eventually they came to realize that they might have had it wrong all along not because they were stupid, but they were unfortunate enough to be educated by people who didn't know or didn't care what they were talking about, a state of affairs that is depressingly common in many US states.
 

tomtom94

aka "Who?"
May 11, 2009
3,370
0
0
Invoke Hitler.

That shit always works.

In truth, I'm a terrible debater, particularly because I tend to shrivel up as soon as emotion gets involved (yeah, there's some issues in my past) and I'm terrible at explaining myself in verbose terms. This may explain why most of my posts are quite short.

On the other hand, there is a tip - be concise, get your points across quickly and efficiently, and try to limit any arguments you do get into to relevant points - don't veer off into insults, don't dissect grammar and spelling and other irrelevant bullshit.
 

nuttshell

New member
Aug 11, 2013
201
0
0
Usually, I try to ask questions from different perspectives to provoke critical thinking, to try to challenge the position taken of my "opposing party", sometimes presenting them with a "get out of jail for free-card". For example: Do you fully understand what you just said? It implies this and that and would have these consequences. You can still change your formulation or is this really what you think?" I think it's a civil way to argue against (and possibly change) insane or stupid positions.

tomtom94 said:
Invoke Hitler.

That shit always works.
Ha! Yes, I did this too, many times but usually by also bringing up views that do not conflict with the general view of Hitler and trying to build analogies on that basis. Something like: "Hitler did some nice paintings imho. It doesn't mean he was a nice person and not a psychopathic mass-murderer. Why do you think this other artist being a jerk or even a lunatic means we should censor his work?"
 

ClockworkPenguin

Senior Member
Mar 29, 2012
587
0
21
Depends if it's in a club/competitive setting or if I'm just arguing.

Formal debates I think of three main arguments for/against a motion and spend a minute laying each out, making sure not to ramble or repeat myself. Delivery is quite important, the trick is to sound forceful and radiate absolute confidence in what you are saying, but to never sound angry or emotional as that suggests a loss of rationality and control.

When I'm just having an argument, I actually tend to be a lot more reasonable and I use a lot of qualifiers to highlight that I'm not an expert in what we're discussing so a lot of what I say is speculation. I'm often willing to concede individual points, less so the argument in general, although I have had my mind changed in discussions before. Sometimes I deliberately concede a point though because it allows me to use the same reasoning to dismantle one of their arguments.
 

Lionsfan

I miss my old avatar
Jan 29, 2010
2,841
0
0
My one rule, and I try to abide by it as much as I can, is never to insult the person you're debating/arguing with.

The second you insult them, the argument is over. You're basically admitting that you've got nothing else to say, and they're just going to ignore anything else you say, whether it's true or not, because you insulted them.
 

Calibanbutcher

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2009
1,701
8
43
Pull a gun of course.
Just put it right to your opponents head and watch them concede that you are actually right on all points.
THAT shit always works.
tomtom94 said:
Invoke Hitler.

That shit always works.

In truth, I'm a terrible debater, particularly because I tend to shrivel up as soon as emotion gets involved (yeah, there's some issues in my past) and I'm terrible at explaining myself in verbose terms. This may explain why most of my posts are quite short.

On the other hand, there is a tip - be concise, get your points across quickly and efficiently, and try to limit any arguments you do get into to relevant points - don't veer off into insults, don't dissect grammar and spelling and other irrelevant bullshit.
You wanna know who always invoked Hitler?
HITLER.
HA.
 

SckizoBoy

Ineptly Chaotic
Legacy
Jan 6, 2011
8,678
200
68
A Hermit's Cave
Eh... for all I was an OK debater at school, I reckon I'm shit these days... I tended to counter my own arguments, then provide counter-counters to deprive my opponent the use of the counters... *shrug* once, in a single debate, because my opposite number's second was ill, no one volunteered to take over, so I shrugged and argued both sides because I had speeches effectively readied for both perspectives (English vs Maths importance in a UK school). That was interesting...

Anyway, I'm more of a straight up orator, or rather, I can write a damned good speech, but I can't deliver one for shit (not really sure, having not needed to try in years). However, 'damned good speech' would only really apply if you were born in the early/mid 19th century... >_> ...
 

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
Drive a stake through their heart. It's the most surefire way of getting your point across.
 

PoolCleaningRobot

New member
Mar 18, 2012
1,237
0
0
Definitely keep a cool head, there's nothing worse than arguing with someone who's way to invested in their viewpoint. And quit when I know my opinion is out numbered because at that point, who cares. I usually try to eat shit and force myself to admit when I'm wrong though. I don't really like Internet arguing as much as I used to because I'm never fully with one side of an issue and you cant exactly argue like that.
Ex:
"The Wii U is shit!" Well its not bad but...
"The Wii U is the best console ever!" Well its not that great...

nuttshell said:
Ha! Yes, I did this too, many times but usually by also bringing up views that do not conflict with the general view of Hitler and trying to build analogies on that basis. Something like: "Hitler did some nice paintings imho. It doesn't mean he was a nice person and not a psychopathic mass-murderer. Why do you think this other artist being a jerk or even a lunatic means we should censor his work?"
I'm having one of these not sure if sarcasm moments and I apologize if I'm too dense to recognize it but I tomtom was referring to godwins law [http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/godwins-law] which is that a every debate leads to Hitler
 

nuttshell

New member
Aug 11, 2013
201
0
0
PoolCleaningRobot said:
I'm having one of these not sure if sarcasm moments and I apologize if I'm too dense to recognize it but I tomtom was referring to godwins law [http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/godwins-law] which is that a every debate leads to Hitler
...and ends there. It's fine if no one screams "Nazi!", you can discuss further, which happened on these forums, where I really brought a similar argument up once. But I admit, I did expect at least one furious response with a little grin on my face. I was positively surprised that I got none.

LetalisK said:
Drive a stake through their heart. It's the most surefire way of getting your point across.
Now we know what's at stake, if we try to debate you.
 

PoolCleaningRobot

New member
Mar 18, 2012
1,237
0
0
nuttshell said:
PoolCleaningRobot said:
I'm having one of these not sure if sarcasm moments and I apologize if I'm too dense to recognize it but I tomtom was referring to godwins law [http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/godwins-law] which is that a every debate leads to Hitler
...and ends there. It's fine if no one screams "Nazi!", you can discuss further, which happened on these forums, where I really brought a similar argument up once. But I admit, I did expect at least one furious response with a little grin on my face. I was positively surprised that I got none.
A furious response? There is no anger today

 

Elementary - Dear Watson

RIP Eleuthera, I will miss you
Nov 9, 2010
2,977
0
0
I play a lot of Devils Advicate... and will often think of holes and flaws in others arguements highlight them... often through hyperbolic exaggeration and comedic sarcasm!

I will also draw lots of comparisons and examples... and I will never present an arguement without evidence... Never!
I am a visual learner, so when explaining a point or a view my language is usually very descriptive and dynamic, coupled with my cheery demeanor, and my extraordinary well spoken accent, and it is often seen as the time where I am most charismatic when I am debating.
 

Compatriot Block

New member
Jan 28, 2009
702
0
0
I usually post my opinion on a subject and wait to see what kind of response I get. Sometimes people seem like they actually want to talk about it, which is great.

Unfortunately, sometimes my post will get quoted to hell and back by people who clearly are using my post as a textual punching bag, fairly or unfairly, and are completely uninterested in discussing anything other than "you're wrong, I'm right." So lately my strategy has been to post a mild opinion if possible and then do my best to not get super salty when somebody misunderstands one of the sentences I wrote, intentionally or otherwise.
 
Oct 10, 2011
4,488
0
0
Arguments, evidence, analysis. It's really the best strategy for any debate, if you are giving the arguments that is.

However In formal debates I usually get the job of the rebuttal, because no matter how logical the opponent is I can just say something along the lines of this:


...And the debate is over. Most people think that the whole debate needs to make sense, but in the counter arguments you just insult the intelligence of your opponent and suddenly their argument seems stupid.

The masses are just way too easy to manipulate.
EDIT: Fixed video link
 

TWRule

New member
Dec 3, 2010
465
0
0
I prefer discussion over debate, but if I do debate, I use the dialectical method (ala Plato); i.e. I try to establish common understanding at every point of the way, without glossing over the differences between my view and my opponent's (actually, my strategy is exactly to bring out the substantive differences between myself and my opponent. If we share common values, I appeal to those values while explaining how I think my position better honors them. If we do not share any obvious common values, then I will focus on testing my opponent's argument for self-consistency, and try to understand his/her motivations for thinking the way s/he does (hopefully finding those common values for the sake of common understanding).

If common understanding is established, both myself and my opponent have self-consistent positions, then we can start discussing possible criteria for how to evaluate our two views comparatively. If none can be found or if common understanding is not established (especially if the opponent seems unwilling to make sure an effort), then I will agree to disagree if appropriate.
 

HoneyVision

Senior Member
Jan 4, 2013
314
7
23
Examples, examples, examples. People won't give half a shit if you don't have evidence to back up your claims. Stats, quotes, real life events. They're all crucial proof that your argument is correct.

Also, a lot of people avoid this, but always criticize your opponent's argument. But do it creatively and ethically. Never get personal and always focus on the overall point of the argument, which means don't nitpick small irrelevant points. Keep questioning the validity of your opponent's argument until you beat them into submission haha.

And finally - and this is absolutely absolutely important, and it's something MANY people cannot do to save their lives - use LANGUAGE. Use good sophisticated words. Use flowery language features like personifications and metaphors. Use interesting sentences like short sentences. Use good delivery techniques with sound effects and body language. How else did Obama become president? lol