Dopers... teach me how to become a better debater

In My Humble Opinion
1

I have almost always been terrible at debating things, and arguing my case. Although I would consider myself a reasonably intelligent person with (occasionally) great ideas, I often find myself flabbergasted in an argument.

A lot of the times this is down to poor communication skills in oral debates. This is where each party is in the physical presence/vicinity of the other. But this can also translate to written forms of communication/debating. I often find myself at a loss for words. I can only “feel” what I am trying to say, but have great difficulty in expressing it.

However, I would also say that my analysis of a debate is extremely poor. In general, when I have looked at the Great Debates forum of this board, I am amazed to see not only how well ideas/thoughts/opinions are articulated, but also the different debating tactics used by various posters.

I want to learn more about how to articulate my opinions, both in written and oral debates/arguments. I also want to learn more about the various types of debating tactics there are. Also to understand the different modes of a debate.

For example, I take it from this board that there are a number of logicians/theologians amongst the Doper populace. I would like to become more familiar with the types of arguments/strategies/styles used by these various guys.

For example, over here there are two Dopers debating the positions of thier respective cases. In post #7, Liberal cites a number of “standard” logical fallacies in Lissa’s argument. The terms he uses appear to be grounded in some sort of academic background/statement(s) e.g.

“Speaking of logic, you have just presented a false dichotomy”…“That is another logical fallacy, in this case equivocation” etc.

I would like to learn more about these techniques/principles. I was wondering what subject areas they fall into. For example “Argumentation 101” - or some such.

When informing me, could you please split the advice you provide into two groups - one for the oral debating format, and one for the written.
Please help me develop the many different necessary skills to make me an effective debater.
Just to give you an idea;

ORAL FORMAT

  • Speak clearly
  • Make your arguments as concise as possible
    etc.

Or whatever your advice is - it doesn’t have to be in bullet points.

WRITTEN FORMAT
…

Well, you understand. So go ahead, improve me (or help me improve myself).

2

Glen Whitman’s Debate Page provides a decent introduction to formal debate. (It includes a link to a page of fallacies (incomplete) and that page links to a more complete list of fallacies (along with an approach to debate) which, in turn, links to another list of fallacies.)

As to presentation:

  • be sure that you really understand your facts (and that they are correct);
  • read up on the positions of your opponent(s) so that he, she, or they do not surprise you with new information or a new argument;
  • when you are truly in error, concede that point (arguing to the death on a point where you are wrong simply makes you look foolish and weakens your perfomance in the eyes of any observers);
  • stick to the discussion and don’t get distracted by personalities (if your opponent is resorting to personal attacks, most observers will see that as a weakness of the opposing arguments; replying in kind weakens your position).

(You can ignore the last point if you are simply in it for the fun of bashing each other. Some of the more “fun” threads in the Pit have amounted to little more that a couple of people savaging each other through wit. However, if you are interested in persuading people of your position, that will not do it.
If you are having trouble refraining from getting into a mud slinging contest, stop and think what your goal is. The majority of people who get into heated debates, here, have already thought out their positions and are unlikely to be swayed by a mere debate. So, why are you bothering to debate such people? Probably to persuade all the silent onlookers who have not yet made up their minds. To persuade these people whom you have not met (and who are judging your position based on your presentation, not on what a swell guy you are), you need to stay focused on your presentation, not on any personal failings your opponent(s) might display.)

3

To briefly address the academic end, at most colleges and universities the sort of thing you’re looking for would fall under the Philosophy department. Course titles would probably contain the word “Logic” or “Reasoning”. There’s also “Rhetoric”, which involves how you present your argument and persuade your audience rather than whether or not your argument is valid or sound. At my school this topic fell under the Communication department.

I couldn’t tell from your post if you’re a student or not, but I would expect that any decent college would offer a 100-level course (something like “Intro to Logic” or “Practical Reasoning”) covering how to construct an argument, the concepts of validity and soundess, and the major logical fallacies.

4

If you are of high-school age, find out if your school has a debate team.

If you are in college, see above.

Most junior colleges have Oral Communication classes offered at night. Some of these are quite good.

5

I can’t help you with face to face debating. I’ve never had to do that, but I can help you with your Straight Dope debating skills. Anyone can do it. Here are some techniques that have been used by many to make their point.

You don’t have to be well spoken or even have a good understanding of the English language. If someone comments on this, tell them you’re from another country. As long as you’re not a native moron, people will still take your posts semi seriously without holding you responsible for what you say.

Lie, lie, lie. Your sources? It depends what your passion is. Conspiracy websites are always good, as are supremacist websites. Can’t beat a blog either! As long as your source identifies itself as the voice of progressive thought or a non violent response to oppression that others may or may not know exist, you’ll be golden.

If someone questions your source, go find an academic word generator and slip in a few sentences about how Group X controls or influences the US media. If you’ve done that too many times, make a personal attack on the person or persons who questioned it.

Double, triple, or even quadruple negatives can really help out your cause. As long as no one understands what your point is, they can’t respond. And the more time they spend trying to understand, the more time others have to read your posts and cites.

Pay your membership fee with the knowledge that the Straight Dope motto doesn’t apply to the boards. With this in mind, post a one liner in as many threads as you can. Don’t explain them, don’t provide cites (save those gems for the lengthy posts), just say what you want and get the hell out of there. It’s against the rules to call someone a troll, remember. Just log out so no one can hold you responsible.

If the thread or post is about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, it doesn’t matter what you say. Shit on the screen, call it your cite, be a prick, insinuate Group A was askin’ for it, do whatever. It doesn’t matter, really.

If the thread or post is about the existence of Gods/Goddesses, validity of sacred texts, etc, post a one liner about how God doesn’t exist. If one doesn’t show up in one to three months, make a post in Great Debates challenging theists to prove their belief or validate a certain belief. Don’t bother searching for previous posts; It’s just time people be reminded.

And lastly: If you can’t prove something, make an angelfire website and call it your cite. Or call your post your cite. Whatever.

When in doubt, fuck it. Let that be your guide.

Welcome to activity, NewHeart.

6

I’ve been a master-debater since I was 13, but I like to keep my techniques private.

Happy

7

I wonder how Cecil is at debating? Never seen him in GD, but I’ll bet he could kick some ass just on reputation alone.

I may be a master-debater, but I don’t think I’d like Master debating here.
Happy

8

Re: debating on the board:

The biggest mistake (one that I seem to make a lot) is to make sure you’ve read the entire thread before commenting. It’s possible that someone you take to task on something has already conceeded the point with a little one line, “Oh, OK, you’re right” and you badgering them makes you look like an idiot.

As such, it’s much easier to get started in newer debates than multi-page ones.

Also, be aware of which side you’re entering on. Most of the debates around here seem to be gang beating wherein several people will take on one guy. This presents a problem for the lone debator even if they are correct because you’ve not got to deal with 14x more research, posting, nitpicking and ad hominem attacks than a more even approach.

9

Thanks for the links tom.

By the way, anyone who has any info regarding books and other written material concerning the OP could you please post them here. Thanks.

10

A policy debate rests on four key arguments, which are called the “stock arguments.” In a policy debate you have the way things are, the status quo, and the way someone wants to change things to. To make a valid case to change the status quo, the person(s) wanting to do needs to establish four things:
[ul][li]Harms. One needs to show that the current state of the world is hurting somebody. For example, in a debate on gay marriage, advocates of licensing and endorsing gay marriage would need to show not allowing or recognizing SSM is harmful so somebody.[/li][li]Inherency. Most strongly stated, it means this: Absent the plan to change, the harms will not go away. I.e., the harms caused by banning SSM will not go away unless SSM is given the same status as hetero marriage. A weaker statement of inherency is that the harms will not go away within the status quo. This is weaker because an opponent can offer an alternate plan. E.g., instead of marriage, allow some sort of legal status short of marriage to same sex couples.[/li][li]Plan. The person wanting to change the status quo needs a plan to do so. In our example, the person is advocating giving SSM the same status as hetero marriage. Here is where opponents pull out the dis-ads, short for disadvantages. The opponents will try to show that the plan will produce results worse than the harms they intend to solve. So opponents of SSM might pull out something about the sanctity (?) of marriage being undermined, etc.[/li][li]Solvency. Here the advocate of change needs to show that the plan will actuall produce the desired effects. So, with our example, opponents of SSM might say that if the gov’t treats SSM the same as hetero marriage, it will not eliminate prejudice or remove god’s anger or who knows what.[/ul][/li]
If one wishes to change the way things are, then one needs to win on all four of those counts. A good example of a failure to do so would be a debate on C-SPAN that I saw regarding the Iraq war. The proponents of war established that the Saddam regime was a harm that needed to be eliminated. They established that, at the very least, the harms of the Saddam regime won’t end until Saddam is removed. What they didn’t really do were the following. They really didn’t establish solvency—this is because they didn’t really show that another party in leadership would be any more humane or responsible. Second, they didn’t really fight off the dis-ads—they needed to show that terrorism & danger against the U.S. would go down as a result and they never really established that. As a result, those advocating war had failed to actually make the case for war.

As for general arguing, I think the book How to Win an Argument was a pretty readable and easy to digest introduction to critical thinking. I’d recommend it as a starting point.

11

Sorry…in the philosophy section of the bookstore or the library, look for “Critical Thinking” to find books that address the subject of real-life arguing. It is an important skill that is woefully absent, IMO.

12

Don’t feel you have to take a ‘side’ in order to participate in the discussion, or at least don’t be forced to occupy the extreme opposite from those individuals with which you have least in common.

13

I think that is sometimes one of the best ways to learn to actually argue effectively. Extreme positions force one to exercise creatively and since emotions aren’t invested in them, it is easier to think about them abstractly. It’s when emotions get involved that I think a lot of people really lose their ability to argue well.

Taking positions opposite of what you believe is a great way to learn to argue.

14

You misunderstand me; I do actually think it’s rather important to fully understand your opponent’s position, even to test your own arguments this way, but that’s not what I was talking about above.

What I’m saying is that if you find yourself in a position near (but not actually at) the middle, you shouldn’t necessarily allow yourself to be pushed toward the extreme simply because it is convenient for those people who are the other side of the middle.

Or perhaps better expressed as: you don’t have to inhabit anyone’s straw man argument (which is sort of obvious)

15

Sorry, my bad.

That is an excellent point, and that is very, very applicable to the real world. I’m a zoning administrator, and we just had a very high-stakes issue come to the zoning board of appeals (zba) last week. So high stakes that the only people who spoke were lawyers for the parties. On one side, the lawyers’ sole strategy was to shift ground so that the zba would defend ground that it actually never wanted, nor logically (or legally) had to occupy. Fortunately, the head of the zba wasn’t going to fall for that bullshit.

Shifting ground is a very common in GD, and a few people will try to lead you into areas you don’t want to defend if you let them. I don’t know if they do it as a dirty trick, or just because they don’t know any better, but one needs to keep an eye out for that. It is easy to find yourself “losing” an argument because you didn’t realize that you were led into a bullshit point by some clever misdirection.

16

Yeah, that’s why I want to brush up on it.

I checked on Amazon and there are quite a few different books under that title. Do you have an author - or were you just joking (I’m not entirely sure at this point)?

17

Er…no, I wasn’t joking. I came across a book in the library titled How to Win an Argument, though I don’t recall the author’s name. I actually bought Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide by Bowell & Kemp because it looks pretty good and more in depth than the former, but I haven’t had a chance to really get into it. The chapter on rhetorical ploys and logical fallacies seems pretty good, and I actually referenced it quite a bit just recently when doing a report on some legal briefs submitted to the township.

18

I think this one is the one I got from the library. IIRC, it was kind of basic, but in a way that is really useful.

www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1567314430/qid=1095874049/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-8961167-9327005?v=glance&s=books
The Logic of Real Arguments looks really good, but I haven’t read it or spent much time w/ it other than browsing it at the bookstore about twenty times:

www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521313414/qid=1095874290/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-8961167-9327005

19

Thanks for the links js. Time to go book-hunting.

20

My pleasure. :slight_smile: