How do you debate with other people?

[Not Anyone To Care For]

I want to know how you go about debating. What tactics do you use? Do you tailor your argument to the person you're debating with? If so, how do you tailor it?

I want to hear everything you guys have to say, mastering the art of debate will make me a sharper and more intelligent being. Thank you to all who participate

 

[QuickTwist]

"Don't get hit."

 

[Hadoblado]

With tongue firmly in cheek.

Yeah I tailor the argument. Usually the aim is to make people feel silly for holding strong opinions about stuff they don't have a comprehensive understanding of. That means it's important to tailor specific elements to what I understand of what they understand: mainly which questions they'll find it difficult to articulate the answers to. I then farm their responses for ammunition and repeat until they feel right silly or I do.

 

[Grayman]

Be very clear on your main point and don't hide it in a wall of text. Provide supportive evidence through links when possible. Copy the main part of the article that supports your position into your post but keep it to two or three sentences so that they can easily identify the foundation of your argument.

 

[QuickTwist]

Side track, but "Tailoring your responses based on who you are talking to" seems like such an Enneagram 3 thing.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Side track, but "Tailoring your responses based on who you are talking to" seems like such an Enneagram 3 thing.

E3 - self-promotion
E6 - ingratiation
E9 - conflict-avoidance / harmonization

I think they all wrestle with identity issues.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Two goals: 1) Establish yourself as the more competent and preferred choice 2) Get people to act on your behalf

For 1, It's more than just customizing your content in anticipation of the other party's content and responses. You have to cater everything you can to your audience and speak on their level. Once you've got that down, you can explore various ways to usurp and minimize the other party.

For 2, well, a lot depends on what you're specifically trying to achieve regarding whatever you're talking about, because talking alone doesn't do much. Exploit intrinsic and extrinsic motivation simultaneously and in equal proportion.

http://images.kw.com/docs/2/1/2/212345/1285134779158_htwfaip.pdf

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I think I tend to focus more on learning and finding the truth and/or a compromise position than does the typical person, as opposed to winning for the sake of winning - although, I admit that if I am strong in my position I can be hard to convince otherwise.

So, I'll try and clarify the argument of the other party so that I can better understand what it is I am disagreeing with, and likewise try to pinpoint where it is in my own stance, or expression thereof, that the other party is taking issue with. My focus is more long-range, assuming I'm taking the debate seriously.

 

[The Gopher]

"Really? Hmm that's weird."* You start by making them a little insecure about their position but feign interest about potentially learning something new. Do they really know what they are talking about? Then you vaguely imply they might be wrong but confirm that they're probably right as you don't know much about it.

Then you tell your friends to debate them fiercely and call them idiots. Alternatively if they were talking about something else they're probably already debating someone anyway. When talking to them about the current debate slowly go from backing them up to being unsure to implying they might be wrong to subtly thinking they're stupid. At this point unless they're very set in their ways they'll be second guessing themselves hard core and may even change their position to a less set one. At this point you can go on a voyage to truth with them and eventually they'll end up enlightened or something.

Seriously though I generally just state something and say I don't know why however I know it's right. Then when talking to them I slowly work out why it is right and after a while of back and forth I'll connect the dots and go. "Okay I've worked it out" then I lay out everything in order and if I'm right people will concede.


* I say this a lot and have basically only used it once in this manner so don't freak out I'm probably genuinely curious.

 

[QuickTwist]

"Really? Hmm that's weird."* You start by making them a little insecure about their position but feign interest about potentially learning something new. Do they really know what they are talking about? Then you vaguely imply they might be wrong but confirm that they're probably right as you don't know much about it.

Then you tell your friends to debate them fiercely and call them idiots. Alternatively if they were talking about something else they're probably already debating someone anyway. When talking to them about the current debate slowly go from backing them up to being unsure to implying they might be wrong to subtly thinking they're stupid. At this point unless they're very set in their ways they'll be second guessing themselves hard core and may even change their position to a less set one. At this point you can go on a voyage to truth with them and eventually they'll end up enlightened or something.

Seriously though I generally just state something and say I don't know why however I know it's right. Then when talking to them I slowly work out why it is right and after a while of back and forth I'll connect the dots and go. "Okay I've worked it out" then I lay out everything in order and if I'm right people will concede.


* I say this a lot and have basically only used it once in this manner so don't freak out I'm probably genuinely curious.

LOL. Sounds like fantasy talk.

 

[Sinny91]

How I debate totally depends on the peoples and situations in question, BUT I'll tell you what I DONT do; which is to dogmatically bring peoples "types" into the (unrelated) debate, dogmatically request peer reviewed studies, and dogmatically insist that my friends brothers uncle and my mother know best, and dogmatically and hypocritically insist that an entire forum is frustrating.

*Tips hat towards Bvanevey*

..who is no doubt still watching whilst he's logged out and looking for a new forum to frustrate.

All these forums later, has he not figured out the common denominator?

Fucking buffoon.

 

[The Gopher]

LOL. Sounds like fantasy talk.

Pretty much. It's not something that would happen intentionally unless you were a sociopath. You just need to be at the right level of not caring to argue passive aggressively when it comes up. Then not care so you just agree with them. Then slowly get annoyed so you stop agreeing with them over time.

 

[QuickTwist]

Pretty much. It's not something that would happen intentionally unless you were a sociopath. You just need to be at the right level of not caring to argue passive aggressively when it comes up. Then not care so you just agree with them. Then slowly get annoyed so you stop agreeing with them over time.

How is arguing passive aggressively beneficial to proving you are right? What you suggest is more a matter of manipulation than actually debating. Basically, it is subtly using ad hom fallacy to beat down your opponent. This is like going against the unwritten rules of debate and some debates clearly say ad homs are not allowed. Where is the class in this?

 

[The Gopher]

It's not optimal and it's not so much about proving you are right but leading them to the truth. It's more for when you aren't motivated enough to actually argue you just make them argue with themselves. If they argue with themselves with the various perspective shifts you give them for long enough hopefully they'll come to the right conclusion. The best way to win a debate is to have the other side change their mind and if you can do that with minimal effort why not?

It's not manipulation and it's the furthest thing from Ad Hom. How on earth did you come to that conclusion you idiot!

Spoiler

Just in case that's a joke

It's simply making them re-think their own perspectives with various different frames. Unless you're talking about formal debates when they are forced to not change their mind.

 

[QuickTwist]

It's not optimal and it's not so much about proving you are right but leading them to the truth. It's more for when you aren't motivated enough to actually argue you just make them argue with themselves. If they argue with themselves with the various perspective shifts you give them for long enough hopefully they'll come to the right conclusion. The best way to win a debate is to have the other side change their mind and if you can do that with minimal effort why not?

Its still manipulation as far as I am concerned.

It's not manipulation and it's the furthest thing from Ad Hom. How on earth did you come to that conclusion you idiot!

Spoiler

Just in case that's a joke

You cheeky bastard. Its insulting and that is the point.

It's simply making them re-think their own perspectives with various different frames. Unless you're talking about formal debates when they are forced to not change their mind.

frames that are not necessarily morally pure. I think you can agree with that right?

 

[The Gopher]

Its still manipulation as far as I am concerned.



You cheeky bastard. Its insulting and that is the point.



frames that are not necessarily morally pure. I think you can agree with that right?

Really? Hmm... If that's manipulation isn't everything manipulation? I mean I could see the case for it being considered influence however influence isn't necessarily manipulation. You could be right though debating really isn't my strong point I prefer to avoid conflict if necessary.

Frames are morally pure by definition, no picture the camera takes has any moral inclination. They may be incomplete though I'll give you that. That incompleteness could be due to morally impure intent though.

 

[QuickTwist]

Really? Hmm... If that's manipulation isn't everything manipulation? I mean I could see the case for it being considered influence however influence isn't necessarily manipulation. You could be right though debating really isn't my strong point I prefer to avoid conflict if necessary.

Frames are morally pure by definition, no picture the camera takes has any moral inclination. They may be incomplete though I'll give you that. That incompleteness could be due to morally impure intent though.

People don't usually change their perspective. What the do is save face, sometimes maliciously.

 

[Minuend]

I don't. Not in RL anyways, there's no point to it. Discussing tings with closer friends, families or partners, sure, but then I don't really do or say anything special because it's not about "winning". I wont say I don't unconsciously tailor my argument, though. But mulling it over, I think that is more about speaking to a common sense of reference.

On the internet I just write like I always write. I don't care whether the other guy is convinced, so I don't care to tailor it in any way. Usually I wont be bothered to reply back and forth extensively either.