Got my butt kicked in a debate. Suggestions?

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

Recently I’ve started to expand my horizons on the board. I finally left the pit and MPSIMS and tried to start a few debates in great debates. Actually one of them started out as a general question which turned into great debates because I was stupid about where I started it.

here is the first and here is the second

As you can plainly see, RickJay, in both cases, blew me out of the water. I don’t agree with him about the Arrow, I love the thing. But I don’t see a point in letting him destroy me further. Anyway, my question is this: how do I get better at debating? practise? Anyone got any suggestions for how I can improve myself to become a much more useful member of the board? Should I give up and slink back to MPSIMS and the pit as a lost cause? Help.

Buliwyf

2

I’m not a good debater, but I’ve found this site to be helpful:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/

3

Keep on debating. You don’t agree with him about the Avro Arrow, google up some stuff, refute his points, give additional arguments reinforcing your argument, etc. That’s the fun of a good debate; even if no one changes their ideas, everyone comes out with more knowledge :cool:. Also, don’t forget about debates started by other people. You can weigh in on those too (or just observe how others debate).

4

Actually, there’s two schools of thought about debating, mine and everyone elses. Most people will give you all sorts of debating technique advice, but it’s an uphill climb - not worth it. The real answer is to ignore technique altogether and focus on being right. That’s what I’ve done in all my debates and it has served me well.

Once you are right, the rest all falls into place. All “proofs” offered up by your opposition will have answers - they will have to, being wrong as they are. It’s only a matter of finding what the holes in the arguments are. By contrast, those who allow themselves to take wrong positions in debates are relying on their technique to allow them to concoct artificial holes in their opponent’s arguments. Not a good idea.

Similarly, finding evidence that supports your position is much much easier if you are right. There’s just bound to be all sorts of evidence out there in support of the truth. Much better than being wrong and having to rely on weaselly contortions.

Try this method out - if it doesn’t work, get back to me. :smiley:

[sub]Though much of the above was tongue in cheek, it has an underlying point. That being that you should make sure that you clearly understand the issues you are debating and why you hold to your position prior to the debate. Some prior exposure to contrary positions is helpful as well. Barring these, you should be more tentative in your assertions, and/or limit yourself to specific arguments that you are sure of and can back up, as opposed to larger points with regards to which you stand on shakier ground.[/sub]

5

I disagree with ya, IzzyR, truth doesn’t speak for itself. It’s great that you have enough confidence in your facts that you’re satisfied you’re just presenting impartial truths (or that you pick your battles), but sophistry, equivocation, intimidation, and abuse play a major role in most argument. Er, I mean debate plays a major role.

If the facts really spoke for themselves all issues we enjoy in the SDMB would come to a natural termination. As we know, discussions about abortion, SUVs, handguns, religion, etc., seem to end when the proponants run out of steam.

Actually, IzzyR, I prefer your approach. However I find that on the SDMB – as in life – being able to present your facts in a way that makes impact is more important than having any particular expertise.

For example. I just expressed an opinion about whether one of two battleships would win an encounter. Am I an expert? No. Do I expect my facts and opinion to be roundly attacked? No. My position may not be incredibly well-founded, but I think I added something to the discussion.

Now, take a counterexample. One of two or three areas in computer science I’ve done advanced work. Am I an expert? Yeah, I might be considered one. Are my facts and opinion going to be accepted? Sometimes. Often not. Why? A couple reasons. One is that everybody knows something about computers, but there’s no real acid test about what constitutes profound knowledge. So I end up arguing every little point. It gets tedious.

Enter debate techniques. Yes, I could win some computer arguments by writing a program to prove my point (as SDMBers have challenged me a couple times). Or I could produce an elaborate argument that summarizes two or three year’s experience working on some project. But . . . why bother? An effective debating stance – supported by a limited number of facts – has the same effect. A better effect, maybe, since most people don’t have the patience to wade through an extended argument. People are liable to use a long argument to their advantage by ignoring major evidence that doesn’t support their position, and by attacking small asides.

Buliwyf, the advantage of the Pit is that you can express emotion (your degree of belief or disbelief in something). Being emotional tends to convince people you’re sincere. But for debate practice, the other forums are just as valuable.

As for debating techniques, try a debating class.

If you’d like to see some real pros in action, try the PBS video tape series “The Constitution: That Delicate Balance”. Wow!

6

I curse the lesson, but bless the knowledge.
Well, I haven’t had time to hit GD in a long time, so my two cent is prolly worthless, but here is what I learned:
Read twice, post once. Really, it helps.

Have an informed opinion. Truly inform yourself as the the arguements on both sides of whatever the debate is, and go in there understanding it and armed. (As In: Captain Kirk vs Captain Picard. You need to have watched many of both generations of episodes to really make your case here. )

I agree with the above post about knowing why you believe in something or why you know “X” to be true before you start your post. There are many times that I have started to post something in GD, only to sit back and ask myself those why questions first. It made me mad the first few times that I realized that I had been believing in something because it was the current popular opinion, not something that I had thought thru. It caused me to actually begin thinking about my arguement a lot more carefully, and oh 8 out of 10 times, I’d erase the post I was about to make a fool our of myself with.

7

A piece of advice from my father, one that is particularly applicable to some GD threads: “Never argue with a crazy person.”

8

OK, here are some of the things I’ve learned from getting my butt kicked a few times.
[ul][li]Accept the fact that there are some things you and the other guy are never going to agree on.[/li][li]If you’re going to cite something, make sure it’s accurate.[/li][li]If you’re not, be sure of your facts and note the lack of a cite before someone else does.[/li][li]Know your strengths and be careful when you stray from them. I ignored that, and picked up a few kicks in the Pit today. [/li][li]Don’t get too involved. When you work out how to do that, tell me. [/li][li]Lurk, lurk, lurk.[/li][li]Nolo te bastardes carborundum – Don’t let the bastards get you down.[/li][li]Know which posters not to get between.[/ul][/li]
There’s a lot of interesting stuff going on in GD, and I learn a lot from it, but there are some topics which I won’t venture into because I know I’ll get eaten alive, and not in the fun way!

CJ

9
  1. Lurk. Read how people argue/debate, look at how they respond to the valid points and the fallacious ones and all of that. See for yourself who usually is right/argues more thoroughly and look at what they do. You’ll discover three truths:

A) They know their side
B) They generally know your side … sometimes better than you do.
C) They can sniff out a logical leap/fallacy/bad analogy before you even write it.

And I don’t just mean these things to be generalizations. If RickJay is going to be in a debate, you can bet your house he’ll know his shit (Fortunately, I often find myself either initially agreeing with him or eventually agreeing with him;)). Same with tom~ or Jodi or David B or Polycarp or a lot of other people. They’re well-read. VERY well-read.

In the end, all the logic in the world doesn’t give you a prayer in the world if you don’t know your shit. You can argue about abortion until you’re blue in the face, but if you don’t know the difference between a gamete and a zygote and a haploid and diploid, you’re going to be in the dark before your second post.

Combination of knowledge and its practical application. And one last thing: some people post a lot in GD and generally get either ignored or summarily refuted. Learn to live with them. They’re good for beginning debators because they don’t present much of a challenge.

But losing to RickJay isn’t anything to be ashamed of:)

10

Research is the key. I cannot stress this enough. It’s the only way to cover all your bases. There are very few defences against an argument deeply rooted in tangible fact. I’ve been lurking here long enough to realise that if there is an inconsistency in your line of argument it will be ripped to shreds in no time. Read deeply into the issue at hand and read around it too. It is time consuming and you’ll doubtless think to yourself ‘Why am I going through all this trouble to rebut an argument made by someone I don’t even know’. However, if you do your research you’ll leave the debate more educated and informed whether you manage to hold your own or not.

While doing your research, make sure you bookmark the best websites so you can cite them if needs be. Also, don’t be afraid to ask for cites if you feel a comment is unsubstantiated.

Be firm. Don’t say ‘I think that you may be mistaken’. Say ‘No, that’s wrong’. Still perfectly civil but firmer, more assertive. It makes you sound more confident in your position which makes you more persuasive.

Don’t try to get involved in every debate going. Pick your battles well and stick to safe ground. Don’t let this discourage you from broadening your horizons, however. If you do your research this won’t be a problem.

A firm grasp of logic is important too, since the easiest way to attack a post is to blaze right through the gaping fallacies in it and you need to be able to call one when you see one.

Finally, know when to bow out gracefully. No-one is right all the time and sometimes you will just find yourself arguing the wrong case. I view debates as educational projects for myself, not a contest of intellectual heft. Don’t take ‘losing’ to heart.

There are many other small points of presentation but nothing particularly important. You’ll pick those up easily enough with a little practise.

Looking forward to seeing you over in GD soon.

Regards,

Ben.

11

P.S. Writing style, technique, rhetoric and sophistry are all important too. Posters who excel at using this include but aren’t limited to Libertarian, ME Buckner, Gaudere, Polycarp, pldennison, Jodi, tomndebb, Mr Visible, Scylla, Fenris and Sua Sponte. If you’re serious about debating like a master, it might be a good idea to pay extra attention to their posts and how they put them together.

12

The best way to win a debate is to be on my side.

13

Know the facts.

14

Figure out what it is exactly what you and your opponent are actually debating. Find out what points you agree on and which ones you disagree on. Every position is backed up by underlying assumptions. It’s the assumptions you want to reveal.

Don’t get distracted by side issues. If you do, your argument will lack focus, and it’ll just go all over the place, and you’ll miss or not respond to the main issues that your opponent is focusing on.

If you realize you’re wrong in someting you’ve said, concede it. If you’ve stated a wrong fact, correct it. There’s nothing that can ruin your credibility more than continuing to assert something that’s been proved false.

Anecdotes can be entertaining, and can help illustrate a point, and can be used to great effect, but they are not by themselves sufficient to support an argument. If you’re arguing that NAFTA is a bad thing because it’s destroyed the Canadian lumber industry, for example, don’t talk about your friend the lumberjack who lost his job because the chair factory he sold his lumber to changed suppliers to a cheaper United States company. Instead, look at the number of people employed in Canada before and after NAFTA, look at timber imports and exports, look at the comparative cost of US and Canadian timber, etc.

Just a few suggestions.

15

Save your time, tell them that they won.

This way, they think that they won, but then they think that you said that to make them think that they won, so they think you won.

Im sure amazon.com or bn.com have books on how to debate.

16

>> Nolo te bastardes carborundum – Don’t let the bastards get you down.

Those of us who know Latin immediately saw the mistake here. It is correctly said “illegitimis non carborundum”.

The best debating technique is to avoid certain posters like the plague.

17

You didn’t entirely lose yet…

Pose this one to Rick: If they Canadian population wishes to keep our “peackkeeping” image, how can we continue to do so without proper funding that keeps Canadian soldiers alive and well overseas?

18

Oh forgot to add: Never admit you’re wrong. NEVER.
Post his arugements here, we’ll help ya win :slight_smile:

19

Well I wouldn’t say the truth speaks for itself - if it would, there would be no one disagreeing, as you note. But it remains true that the truth is enormously easier to defend then its opposite.

One good way to get crushed in a debate is to start off with both guns blazing, making bold assertions based on little more than a gut feeling or emotion, and an overconfidence that comes from not having heard a dissenting argument. You will then have to look for after-the-fact rationalizations and arguments, and will end up weaselling and dissembling. Far easier to get your ducks in a row before you start. (See also the earlier post be aenea along these lines).

20

Twenty good bits of SdMB debating advice:

[sarcasm on]

  1. Don’t read your opponent’s posts.
  2. Accuse your opponent of not reading your posts for the obscure implied details. Inability to pick up your debating points by telepathy shows inferior brain power.
  3. Don’t admit that a point in your favor is less than clearly in your favor, and never suggest that the facts as found in the real world are muddied by a universe of competing events that render your argument laughably irrelevant.
  4. Make up statistics such as precentages, but admit you are doing it, and then discount the balance because it is an insignificant sample.
  5. Remain pure to a philosphical point of view, like Objectivism, Marxism, Chicago school economics, or Liebniz’ ideas, without compromise, because they have already perfected their tautologies. I.e for a Chi school economist: “Q: Gas prices are fixed by a vicious monoploy; A: The demand for gasoline is relatively inelastic.” Marxist example: “the demise of socialism and communism is ahistorical.”
  6. Bush whack 'em. Whenever GWBush got in a jam during his debates with Gore, he would say something sorta like: “I’m for what he said if what he said agrees with me.” Nobody was so rude to point out that he was a moron.
  7. Make up a term as you go along, again, like Bush in the Bush Gore debates. It was something like “Q: Are you for affirmative action? A: I’m for affirmative opportunity.” When Gore ponited out that that meant nothing, people agreed, but scored the point for Bush, because Gore was rude.
  8. Issue a challenge that is really one sided and impossible to meet, like: “You cannot prove that no woman has ever beaten her spouse”. When the other side points out that they don’t disagree with that point, claim victory. When they seek to modify the terms of the challenge: “Well, we are talking only about Heather Mills and her spouse, Paul McCartney, and I offer as evidence that she doesn’t beat him his statements that they get along well” point out that they didn’t meet you initial challenge, that Heather probably beats Paul anyway and he won’t say so in public, he has never denied being beaten by Heather, and your statement is only an argument, not proof, nor even evidence, blah, blah, blah…
  9. Cite the Supreme Court of your jurisdiction on what the law is, even though you are debating what the law should be, not what it is. If your state Supreme Court is so crass as to be ruling the other way, find another state that has a Supreme Court that agrees with you. Jurists you rely on are brilliant even if their only talent is to come up with witty insults, whereas the jurists your opponents rely on are “interpreting” the law, and departing for the original intent of the founding fathers that you agree with. Ignore founding fathers you disagree with.
  10. Science is for people with no faith. Nothing is proven in science, there are only hypotheses. This is no substitute for a moral conviction, or a rash judgment based on the few facts you prefer.
  11. Do not hesitate to be morally judgmental of your opponent’s references, use of the rules of logic, personal character, spelling and grammar.
  12. Be flashier than your opponent. You win based on what those viewing think, and we hate a dullard. The more interesting person usually gets the audience to feel more interested in their performance.
  13. Compare your opponent to Hitler and his allies to Nazis. No SdMB debate thread is truly finished until this happens.
  14. Omit facts that are inconvenient to advancing your argument and in fact explain away your argument. Particularly when citing a reputable source. No one here checks sources, which leads us to:
  15. Don’t hide your eyes, plagarize! Use google to find someone on the internet who has already done your research for you. Out of 5 billion web pages, someone will have done this. Pass it off as your own. Ignore the fact that it is a violation of copyright laws, unethical and scummy. It will be well written and already spell checked. It is a scientific fact that on the SdMB, no one, but no one, (except Duck Duck Goose (a registered trademark) ) knows how to google and find you out. Most high school English teachers know how to google, but count on the fact that here at the SdMB, we do not know. Pay off DDG in advance to keep her mouth shut. She accepts unmarked twenties. US, not Canadian.
  16. Accuse your opponent of making up a position attributed to you, but which you do not hold, impugning you with racist motives, whatever. Make up some horribly injured close relative that they have offended.
  17. Make sure that your opponent actually understands you. If your opponent actually does misunderstand your argument (see 16 above) and comes up with a better argument for you that is a much more satisfying interpretation of the data, DON’T adopt it! Remember, this is a debate, it doesn’t matter who is right, but who wins. Accuse your opponent of being so stupid that he/she had to change your argument to try to win.
  18. Call in your friends. E-mail your friends to join in with the debate and agree with you, support your character, and attack the character, motives, ancestry and parentage of your opponent. Start an email the mods about this post/poster campaign. If you don’t have any friends (and why would anyone with friends be posting here?), whip out some of your sock puppets, but be careful to have given them a few hundred drive by posts first. It simply is not true that sock puppetry is not allowed on this board. Cecil Adams himself is apparently a sock puppet for all around genius Ed Zotti. Back when I was a kid, this was called a pen name, or pseudonym, and it was somewhat honorable. Have your friends/sock puppets pile on. They should have different personalities, one polite, one a raving lunatice. Think good cop/bad cop.
  19. Enhance your credentials. Assert that you have a degree/experience in the area debated, whether you do or not.
  20. Declare victory.

[sarcasm off/]