Five Tips to Win Any Debate

The Prometheus Institute ^ | 8/3/2008 | Justin Hartfield & M. Harrison

[banthefirstamendment]

Don't Debate the Player, Debate the Claim

Five tips to verbally own your opponent with respect, grace and heavily veiled contempt.

1) Always respect your opponent

You will never persuade your opponent to agree with your position. Logicians who happen to be watching your debate could prove with absolute certainty that your opponent's position is completely fallacious by every known rule of human logic, and your opponent won't budge. Like you, people are set in their ways and have heard years of biased opinions to cement their own worldview. They may change their minds eventually (remember, Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat and David Horowitz was once an Afrocentric Communist), but it will certainly not happen during your debate.

[Maverick68]

I THOUGHT AS LONG AS YOU WERE LOUD AND OBNOXIOUS YOU COULD WIN ANY DEBATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[combat_boots]

Alinsky is dead. Ad hominem and post hoc ergo propter hoc (etc) are not.

[the anti-liberal]

bookmark

[Keith in Iowa]

#5-d is a good one. :)

[Checkers]

bump

[xmission]

Is it an undercover ad hominem attack when they say “The fine members of FreeRepublic and other conservative news forums call us lefty communists”, or am I readin too much into this?

[Libertarianize the GOP]

The one I would disagree with is debating in the classroom, true you are unlikely to get better that a B+, it is still fun to take on a whole class and a Professor who doesn't know the facts and has never heard and opposing point of view.

[tpanther]

Well, that and “I know you are but what am I”?

[caseinpoint]

Fun, yes, but perhaps a pyrrhic victory? May not be worth it.

[Political Junkie Too]

I noticed a recent trend among Democrat pundits on the "debate" shows. They often begin their Lefty diatribes with the phrase, "I know that McCain also agrees with me when I say..." and then they go on to say the most extreme things.

They are now putting Obama's words in McCain's mouth. I was listening to FNC on XM this morning, listening to the audio of the morning business shows when I heard this tactic again, talking about how higher gas prices is actually better for America. The Obama supporter began his speech saying that McCain aides agree with Obama that...

Watch for it. You'll be hearing it more and more as a debate tactic. I'd like to hear one McCain supporter cut off the person, insisting they NOT speak for McCain when talking about Obama next time.

-PJ

[Libertarianize the GOP]

I figure it this way, there are enough conservatives in the class who like to know that they are not alone. If I challenge the Professor during the first week they feel more comfortable speaking out, it makes for more lively discussions.

[B-Chan]

This article is correct, especially with regard to the first point. One thing I have had to learn the hard way is that one cannot argue one's opponent into a concession. In other words, there is no way to "win" an argument. (A debate, which is a forensics competition with rules, a judge, and a timer, is another matter.)

Why? Because of the facts of human psychology. Your opponent's positions are going to be inextricably imbedded within his or her ego; therefore, the only way to "win" an agument is to literally change your opponent's mind — i.e. to shatter their ego and reconstruct it along desired lines. This process of shattering and rebuilding a person's ego is called "brainwashing", not argument.

(Brainwashing is easier than one might think; most people have weak minds and tenuous ego construction, and, with only a little training and a few simple techniques, an enthusiastic practitioner can easily become capable of reducing a human mind to putty. However, unless you are in the brainwashing business, I suggest you avoid this route; it's immoral, and usually causes permanent damage to both the washer and the washed.)

In any case, our battle is not with our opponent, but rather with the illogical and/or immoral idea that they are propounding. We should not aim to impose our idea on them, but rather to point out weaknesses in the the logical and moral structures of their position and allow them to change positions of their own free will. To use a Star Trek metaphor: instead of trying to blast through our opponent's shields with "phasers" of logic in an effort to wreck their ship, we should instead seek out their intellectual "prefix code" (a la The Wrath Of Khan) and use it to shut down the logical and moral "combat system" that supports their argument. Put another way, our task is to leave behind delayed-action "bombs" that will "explode" in their mind over time, enhancing weaknesses in their logic. If our "time bombs" are strong enough, our opponents will eventually come to question the pillars that support their particular idea; collapse follows, and the battle is won.

Therefore, in any argument my advice is to "let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay"; that is, to simply state one's own opinions and the logic behind them in a rational and friendly fashion.

[grey_whiskers]

Like, *PING*, dude.

I assume you have read from the Prometheus library?

Watch your liver.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Sorry, meant my prior post this thread for Soliton.

Cheers!

[boogerbear]

The debate teacher at my college said the key was dead babies. The first to associate the other’s position with dead babies wins.

[meyer]

Generally good advice.

[Mr. Silverback]

Nice article, but weren’t you already banned once for pimping this blog?

[ThomasThomas]

It’s depends on what “it” means.