Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Lucika on January 24, 2010, 08:51:38 pm
-
I wrote a short little essay for pure fun about debating. I really love debates but I think this comes through the writing.
Don't forget to check out the YouTube link! It is imperative to set the mood.
Comments and thoughts are highly appreciated :)
The art of debate
As far as I’ve noticed, most of the people seem to have a general misunderstanding about what a debate is. I’d like to shed a light on the matter and show that a debate is far more than two or more people arguing about a random topic.
First things first: the intention.
The goal in a debate is to convince the other one that your opinion is the correct one. As such, you have to be sure that you are right and you must get rid of the pacifist „there are multiple truths” idea. Whether you want to convince the other person because you want to shed light on their dark brain or you want to prove your mental superiority, the basic setting is the same: A. and B. are sitting in front of each other, basically being the same and yet being so different – both of them believe that they’re right and not the other guy.
If you want a comparison: imagine a chessboard with 6200 pieces instead of the normal 32, spreading across a giant chessboard, all the units accurately facing each other. The reason I made this statement as I did is to show how hard it is to make a sufficient breakthrough regarding any topic – of course, this only applies if both debaters are experienced and basically unconceivable.
You might ask: what is the point of a debate if an ideal debate for you means to unconcievable, close-minded geekheads throwing arguments at each other?
I think you’ve misunderstood me. You couldn’t grasp the point. You know, a debate is never, ever about only the given topic. No, it’s always something deeper. Basically the whole way you’re seeing the world is challenged and you have to answer that. Since our opinions never exist in a sterile, unaffected space, we must admit to ourselves that the reason we’re thinking about a topic is nothing but what we are – what were our past experiences, what do we believe in, what do we hate and love… the list could go on. If you want to see what I think a debate really is, check out this from 5:07. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SdmJtzvf0k#movie_player) You’ll see what I mean.
As I’ve said above, two experienced debaters should never be able to convince the other one about their argument (though a good debater immediately admits if he has been defeated and doesn’t hold the unholdable line with pointless counterquestions for half an hour – or half a year, half a life). The good, high-level debate is only about making statements and countering, disproving your opponent’s one. Yes, I’ve said opponent, not partner: I believe that every debate is a little warfare and you cannot allow any step back… but I digress. So, countering and disproving. Most of the great debates result in a complete mental shutdown with no points going across. It doesn’t mean that the debaters don’t give consideration to the other debater’s ideas, no. It only means that they weren’t convinced. Bear in mind: I can’t stress enough that if a debater has actually been convinced or the opponent managed to bring in a valid statement, then he or she shouldn’t obfuscate this fact. Debating should be a fair game with an achievable goal. It’s nothing more than a process of elimination: if you yourself distrust your theory from now on, then what is the point of holding it up anymore?
I’ve digressed again. Again, countering and disproving.
The reason I came up with the „extended chessboard”-metaphor is, along many obvious reasons, is to point out the fact that a good debate is mostly nothing but exchanges that nullify each other. Like in high-level chess: good players make equal tradeoffs (not necessarily material: sometimes a tradeoff of material and time or material and position can be equal, or more than equal; but that’s another story).
Let’s proceed along these lines! If we accept the facts that a) a debater can’t really be convinced and b) a debate is basically a long series of tradeoffs, we should come to the conclusion that the victor of a debate is the person or group who is able to bring up the more valid points that the opponent cannot disprove. QED above, right? I hope so, because we’re only at the beginning yet. The next main point I am going to discuss is the rhetoric area of the debates.
One cannot underestimate the importance of rhetorics in debates. Whether you throw in an unexpected swear to make you present argument more lively and harsh or you just interrupt your opponent to immediately capitalize on a factual mistake, throwing him or her off track or just generally playing with your tone, speed and volume or wording… it’s all rhetorics; and frankly, I consider it to be a more important part of the debate than the actual fact and topic.
Of course, no rhetorics can come in the place of facts. Facts are the cornerstone and basic element of a debate but the thing that makes it exciting, interesting and – be honest – winnable are the rhetorics.
Clink! Clang! Words are exchanged, sudden gestures are grabbed from the mental armory and sent to the battlefield as A. starts shouting in an attempt to clarify that the metric system is a capitalist lie; B. just goes quiet, probably starts whispering, slows down his speech and lists the facts: the old system was impractical and confusing; the metric system is implemented in almost every country, not just the capitalist, „Western” ones; measuring things has nothing to do with politics, at least not on this level… et cetera.
Right. We’re over the basics. The motive, the basic setting, the rhetorics… allow me to spend a few words on the etiquette.
As I’ve stated more than once before: be fair, please. Admit if you’ve been convinced. It’s a case of „improve us” after all. The other really important thing – something I’d like to get into the lawbooks: your actions must make sense. You must’nt start shouting or swearing just because you have no other way to keep your argument from being blown apart. You should have resigned already. Throwing crap into your opponent’s face won’t help you at all. In addition, never swear at your opponent. You can use the so-called „dirty words” in order to stress your current statement (be aware though, it might make your argument childish) but it is frowned upon to, again, throw a bunch of crap on your opponent.
A personal recommendation: don’t be radical in your gestures – and I mean the physical ones. Verbal gestures should go to the extreme if you feel like it. Debates are verbal duels after all. But, please, don’t jump up from your chair if we’re sitting and don’t make loud noises and bangs and cranks! Stay loyal to the format!
You’re still with me? Right. I hope that you are hooked by now, because we’re nearing the end. In this section I want to give you a little insight on a debater’s mind – mine.
Let’s see some tactics and general ideas. Don’t forget the golden rule: never make a debate personal. It escalates the tension to an antisocial and anhandleable level and turns the arguments into swearing, the debate into arguing. Of course, you should try to find weak points in your opponent’s mind and counter the way of his thinking (you are challenging his whole belief system, after all). But don’t attack him or her as a person. It derails the debate and basically kills it.
As I’ve mentioned earlier, it is really important to spot the factual errors. It is more than necessary for winning a debate. On the other hand, never ignore any of your opponent’s statements. Even if you feel like having a more important reaction on your mind, you can’t let a disprovable point to make it across and count as a hit. It is imperative to track and shoot down every torpedo you can. No ships can take more than a few of them, after all.
Always bring up examples and metaphors. If an active, lively argument is facing a static, dogmatic one, the former is always in a serious advantage.
Avoid the „moderated” debates whenever you can. If a teacher or a moderator of any kind present at the battlefront, it immediately reduces the debate to fact- and opinionexchanging. Opinions are really easy to disprove and most facts can be countered by another one. You need rhetorics and gestures in order to be able to get an edge – and this is something that is a rarely available option in moderated debates. The same holds true for online or text-based debates: you can’t have gestures or rhetorics (only to a primitive extent).
If you have a proven point (that your opponent couldn’t counter), stress it! Repeat it countless times, use it as an addition to strengthen your other facts! Make it count, make it heard often! Those are the ones that count, you must’nt forget to use them.
I believe that you should be 100% effective in defusing your opponent’s bombs. Only one mistake can be fatal.
Try not to say „It’s true, but…”. An experienced debater will surely interrupt you at this point and state another point, leaving you seriously vulnerable and in a defensive position.
Speaking of defense: avoid the defensive position at all costs! It gives up the initiative to your opponent and you’ll most probably be unable to get it back, basically making you unable to win the debate (the same holds true for chess). As such, never defend a point if it has been countered! Make up a new one, mention another example, tell another story! Don’t lock yourself down on one sentence!
If your opponent makes this incredible mistake, make sure to capitalize on it! While you constantly bombard the oh-so-important statement while stating a new point of yours at the same times! Repeat until done.
This brings me to wording one again, and I deem it necessary to discuss this a little deeper.
First, please, please be clear and understandable. Don’t make sentences with multiple meanings and convoluted words. If you have to clarify your statements, you’re immediately in the grave called defensive position. On the other hand, try to chain your sentences together into one, longer one. The reasons are that a) you won’t get interrupted by the moderator and b) it counts as one statement – and being an art of action and reaction, the debate’s mechanics will force your opponent to answer in the same way, giving him or her a hard time to react to all of your statements while forming a neat and clear sentence.
The debate’s mechanics. I actually should’ve put this paragraph to the beginning. But chances are, you wouldn’t have understood it.
Let’s get behind the basics now: beneath the surface, under the core; how does a debate work?
As I’ve said above: action and reaction. Attack and counterattack. „a” and „b”, „x” and „y”, white and black – put it as you wish. The fact remains the same: while the style of the debaters can be totally different (note: the great debaters are great actors, too and can pick up any mood and style they feel the most useful), they have to resort to the same methods and tools.
If A. is making one short sentence, B. shouldn’t answer with a 6-page long essay. If A. speaks normally and haven’t started using rhetoric tools yet, B. can’t start shouting like Hitler. You need to slowly shift the pace and tone, dragging the other person with you. See, this is a war on every possible level. And if you can get out of this jungle with your ideas and beliefs intact, I salute you.
Clink! Clang! Now you understand what’s behind the clash of these everyday titans. Feel free to debate my statements here, but be aware… facts aren’t enough…
-
I'm generally of the opinion that debate is pointless. People select opinions, and then selectively filter the facts to support them.
Only crushing empirical evidence can actually make a difference.
-
I'm generally of the opinion that debate is pointless. People select opinions, and then selectively filter the facts to support them.
Only crushing empirical evidence can actually make a difference.
I disagree!
*runs*
Debate is the only way to determine what to get for dinner. Otherwise we'd all go hungry. I would anyways.
-
Debate generally works out one of two ways (in my experience).
First: Two sides have a full scale trench war, and neither side wins.
Second: Two different approaches to the same problem argue pros and cons and generally come to a conclusion that works better than either of the other two.
-
I'm generally of the opinion that debate is pointless. People select opinions, and then selectively filter the facts to support them.
Only crushing empirical evidence can actually make a difference.
Debate over points of fact is indeed pointless, as is debate by uninformed parties.
However, debate is the only way to proceed in situations that lack empirical evidence toward one side or the other. Religious interpretation and matters of opinion, for example. In scientific circles, debate can lead to improvement of the empirical basis by exposing weak assumptions to criticism. However, to be productive it requires a commitment on both sides to abide by the best existing evidence and revise one’s views as appropriate.
As a pastime, I find it stressful and generally unproductive.
-
The usefulness of debate depends a lot on what the people involved are trying to get out of it.
If the main goal is simply to prove yourself right and opponent(s) wrong, it's not likely to lead anywhere.
On the other hand, if you look at the whole exercise as an attempt to get closer to truth, and are willing to leave ego out of it, debate can be a very useful and enlightening thing. Good debate forces you to challenge your own assumptions and to think critically about why you think what you do.
The biggest problem with debate (as an observing third party) is that rhetorical speaking ability, charisma, and general debating skill get conflated with the fundamental points being debated. It can be hard to tell when someone's point of view sounds more attractive because it is better or because the proponent is more skilled at making it sound better.
-
The problem with debates is that they tend to rapidly slide down on this here pyramid.
(http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/6133/refutingapoint.jpg)
-
Eh, depends who you're talking to, I have no problem mixing name calling in with the top three. Tournament Adjudicators seem to think otherwise, however. :P
As a pastime, I find it stressful and generally unproductive.
Eh, you put too much feeling into it. I quite enjoy debating, keeps my mind in gear.
-
The problem with debates is that they tend to rapidly slide down on this here pyramid.
(http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/6133/refutingapoint.jpg)
If you've read the essay carefully, you'll see that in my opinion a good debate never goes beyond level 3.
-
As a pastime, I find it stressful and generally unproductive.
Eh, you put too much feeling into it. I quite enjoy debating, keeps my mind in gear.
there is where the problem debate is about the resolution of conflict whether physical, social or philosophical and where their is conflict there is human emotion which brings aggression dangerously close to the surface and how flaming starts.
As you say Dilmah G debate is fun but its had to find a good debating partner and i will admit that i find it very easy to "debate" with my emotions rather than logic
-
I'm generally of the opinion that debate is pointless. People select opinions, and then selectively filter the facts to support them.
Only crushing empirical evidence can actually make a difference.
Reasonable people will change their opinion based on credible evidence, but the US is not a country of reasonable people, and that has been crippling our democracy.
-
I'm generally of the opinion that debate is pointless. People select opinions, and then selectively filter the facts to support them.
Only crushing empirical evidence can actually make a difference.
Interesting thinking, but debate is not pointless, if it was pointless then we wouldn't have it at all (I mean humans would not use it at all).
About empirical evidence, well that's true for most of the people, but not for all... there are certain subjects where you'll find evidence to be completely useless, like faith related stuff.
I always believed that debate is a way to extend your own existence, if you are victorious in a debate then your point of view is recognized as the correct one therefore making others in the debate think like you (most of the times anyway)... and that is an extent of your way of thinking.
When someone else recongnizes you are right, then you have left "something" of your being somewhere else...you have transend your own body..so to speak.
-
I always believed that debate is a way to extend your own existence, if you are victorious in a debate then your point of view is recognized as the correct one therefore making others in the debate think like you (most of the times anyway)... and that is an extent of your way of thinking.
When someone else recongnizes you are right, then you have left "something" of your being somewhere else...you have transend your own body..so to speak.
Oh, how much I agree!
-
I'm generally of the opinion that debate is pointless. People select opinions, and then selectively filter the facts to support them.
Only crushing empirical evidence can actually make a difference.
Reasonable people will change their opinion based on credible evidence, but the US is not a country of reasonable people, and that has been crippling our democracy.
I'm fairly certain it's a fact of human psychology, not American psychology.
*snip*
Oh, wouldn't it be lovely if it actually worked that way?
I'll reckon I've had more debate experience than most in this thread, and by and large, when people agree with you, it has very little to do with the strength of your argument.
-
Oh, wouldn't it be lovely if it actually worked that way?
I'll reckon I've had more debate experience than most in this thread, and by and large, when people agree with you, it has very little to do with the strength of your argument.
So you are saying people tend to agree because they get tired of debating?...Cause that's what I've been seeing for a long time now... seems like, the more "mature" is the person you debate with, the harder is to get them to acknowledge a mistake, and here I was thinking children where stubborn and irrational :p
-
I always believed that debate is a way to extend your own existence, if you are victorious in a debate then your point of view is recognized as the correct one therefore making others in the debate think like you (most of the times anyway)... and that is an extent of your way of thinking.
..and your way of thinking is an extent of someone elses way of thinking. So whose existence are you extending?
Let me present a bit less romantic view on the subject: To debate successfully you only need to consistently apply logic on the information you posses; logic is always the same, information is available everywhere. Everyone using proper logic on sufficient information arrives to same conclusions. So being victorious usually means wasting lot of time in pointing out things to people that weren't much interested on the subject in the first place :D
-
information is available everywhere.
No, it isn't. And it is frequently contradictory. Whose information do you trust?
-
..and your way of thinking is an extent of someone elses way of thinking. So whose existence are you extending?
Yours, always yours... you are trying to rationalize the effect winning the debate yields but that's not possible.. you can give a general idea of how that process works, here's my share on that:
All human processes vary slightly depending on the subject, but most of the times the constant on human behaviour is YOU, always you, in your deepest thought, there you are... so I can say it's your ego which is getting bigger (at least for YOU that's the way it is), maybe for the other one is like absorbing knowledge, thus making him an "improved version ?"... that could be interpreted as an extension of it's own existence which would not wrong at all.
If you have proved someone wrong, or have made your point stand above others before, you should have felt that deep selfish feeling, so basic and yet so strong, you can't possibly deny that, it's your ego right there... screaming at the top of it's lung capacity... I for one... like it very much I must admit :P
Let me present a bit less romantic view on the subject: To debate successfully you only need to consistently apply logic on the information you posses; logic is always the same, information is available everywhere. Everyone using proper logic on sufficient information arrives to same conclusions. So being victorious usually means wasting lot of time in pointing out things to people that weren't much interested on the subject in the first place :D
As I said before, logic is only a tool in debates, just because everyone you debate with is capable of using logic, just like you do, but cultural, manners, values and all that stuff that makes you what you are always have a say on debates, you can't expect everyone to work in the same level of logic to come to the same conclusion as you did just because you used logic, for you sticking a sword in your guts because you failed is stupid, for an ancient samurai that might be just the best way to go, you can't deny his logic with yours.
Everything is a tool, but there's no absolute truth... that depends on the viewer. (might be stealing someones saying but what the hell..)
-
The best way to convince people of things is to repeat it endlessly.
In psychology we call it 'mere repetition' and it's frighteningly effective.
In fact, if you tell people that something is not true, they will often lose the 'not' tag and end up believing it's true in the long run.
Also, frighteningly, data suggests people value the extremism or intensity of an argument more than they value the credibility of the source.
-
I'm fairly certain it's a fact of human psychology, not American psychology.
Ok then, which societies have actively educated their people on a broad scale (such as using the schools or whatever) to think in a logical and skeptical manner?
-
I'm fairly certain it's a fact of human psychology, not American psychology.
Ok then, which societies have actively educated their people on a broad scale (such as using the schools or whatever) to think in a logical and skeptical manner?
I don't mean to butt into that argument, but I don't think anyone can easily qualitatively compare such things on that wide of a scale. And I believe it is fair to say that all societies have members that don't think or behave rationally. All human beings are capable of acting irrationally given the right wrong circumstances.
-
Quite so.
These appear to be more biological facts of human cognition than social factors.
-
Ok then, which societies have actively educated their people on a broad scale (such as using the schools or whatever) to think in a logical and skeptical manner?
Shouldn't you be answering that question? Battuta seems to have been saying that not doing that isn't something special to America.
-
Yeah, I'm not really sure exactly what he's after.
-
The way I interpreted that statement was that illogic is a natural part of humanity and so we can never have a society based on logic. My point was we dont have one because no one has seriously tried.
-
The way I interpreted that statement was that illogic is a natural part of humanity and so we can never have a society based on logic. My point was we dont have one because no one has seriously tried.
It's not about trying or not.. you can't force logic into someone and that's for sure, thus making a fully logic society an impossible dream for these days.
-
The goal in a debate is to convince the other one that your opinion is the correct one.
Beg differ. The objective is never to convince the person opposite you. Bias renders this goal unuseful. You should strive to be able to convince an unbiased observer of the debate, not your opponent.
-
The way I interpreted that statement was that illogic is a natural part of humanity and so we can never have a society based on logic. My point was we dont have one because no one has seriously tried.
It's not about trying or not.. you can't force logic into someone and that's for sure, thus making a fully logic society an impossible dream for these days.
Why not? Education systems have been successfully indoctrinating people for more than a hundred years.
-
Because the heuristic biases at work may be hard-coded into human cognition.
-
The goal in a debate is to convince the other one that your opinion is the correct one.
Beg differ. The objective is never to convince the person opposite you. Bias renders this goal unuseful. You should strive to be able to convince an unbiased observer of the debate, not your opponent.
You are right if we are considering the formal debates, like the ones at the elections. But if a scientist and a priest sits down and start arguing about God's existence, they're only trying to convince each other. And that's where the fun begins...
-
Because the heuristic biases at work may be hard-coded into human cognition.
Well, I don't see how it can possibly be any worse than what we have now. If someone is trained from a young age to follow the rules of logic and skepticism, most of the time that person's decisions will be heavily based on that. It's really about changing people's thinking patterns.
-
If someone is trained from a young age to follow the rules of logic and skepticism, most of the time that person's decisions will be heavily based on that.
While I'm not arguing that this approach would be better, we have no evidence that the above statement is true.
-
Do we have any evidence that it is not true? I can't think of any society that actively teaches those concepts to children. We can still infer it based on the way different cultures influence ways of thinking.
-
I can't think of any society that actively teaches those concepts to children.
I can. The ancient Greeks used this method for teaching mathematics.
-
I used to write argumentative essays very well back when I was in Secondary 4 / Grade 10. The argumentative essay is, in my opinion, what secured me the award for Best in English in my entire cohort when I graduated, because that was exactly what I did during the GCE "O" Levels in 2007.
I was such a stickler for English back then, to the point where I pissed mura off on IRC, a full year later.
-
For a system to have a moderate success on the hole society's "education" it must be inclusive on all levels, that's just not possible now simply because we are all different, you can teach all you want from as young as you'll be pleased, but in the end the one taking the choices will be the individual, and that's all that maters.
Remember that you can always choose to not like what you are being told, or not to trust what you where taught, it's a choice, besides... teaching a logic way to think to all human kind would be a waste, where would the breakthrough theories come from then?
-
Do we have any evidence that it is not true? I can't think of any society that actively teaches those concepts to children. We can still infer it based on the way different cultures influence ways of thinking.
In the absence of evidence the null hypothesis holds: the variable has no effect.
-
I can't think of any society that actively teaches those concepts to children.
I can. The ancient Greeks used this method for teaching mathematics.
Education was not widespread in those days, and certainly wasn't as long lasting as it is today.
In the absence of evidence the null hypothesis holds: the variable has no effect.
In the absence of evidence one way or another indicates a study needs to be done.
For a system to have a moderate success on the hole society's "education" it must be inclusive on all levels, that's just not possible now simply because we are all different, you can teach all you want from as young as you'll be pleased, but in the end the one taking the choices will be the individual, and that's all that maters.
Yes it does need to be done at all levels, but it certainly would have a lot of influence.
where would the breakthrough theories come from then?
Creativity is logical.
Remember that you can always choose to not like what you are being told, or not to trust what you where taught, it's a choice, besides... teaching a logic way to think to all human kind would be a waste,
No system of indoctrination is 100% of course, but how would it destroy creativity?
-
I can't think of any society that actively teaches those concepts to children.
I can. The ancient Greeks used this method for teaching mathematics.
Education was not widespread in those days, and certainly wasn't as long lasting as it is today.
What can I say to that? You did not contradict my statement: the "elite", if you wish, had learning solely based on logic and logical explanations.
-
I didn't contradict it because even though what you said was true, it doesn't necessarily apply because the percentage of the population trained in that manner was too small. I'm talking about taking it several steps further and applying it to the whole society, not just a select few.