The Nature of Debate

**JasonM** · 05-01-2008, 11:56 PM

As I see it, there are two components that help one win an argument. The first is the rightness of the side that is being argued. The more obviously right the side being defended is, the easier it is to defend it. Take, for example, the debate between creationists and non-creationists. In the eyes of most, non-creationists tend to win these arguments, because there is so much more evidence on their side.

The other factor that helps in winning an argument is the intelligence and skill of the person defending the given point of view. This is the most interesting factor. It is most interesting, because it leads one to believe that many debates are just a bunch of hot air; the winner is not the one who is right, but the one who argues their point the best. It is most important in areas that are poorly defined, subjective, or the evidence is very close between the two sides. I think most political debates fit into this category. If you look at presidential debates, the winner is not the one who is necessarily right, but the one who is most eloquent and skilled at debating (look at all the problems that can occur when certain people who won their debate get elected). Because of the ambiguities, these are the most heated arguments. What's ironic about this is that they are the most pointless. For example, the person who can leave their opponent speechless may "win" the debate, but because the two sides are so ambiguous, there is no definitive answer as to whether the winner is on the right side (supposing there even is a "right side"). What does it mean to win an argument, but to very easily be wrong? It does great things for the ego, but does little for determining truth; if the speechless loser in a debate were smart enough to be able to come up with a poignant final counterpoint, they would win.

**Rowan** · 05-02-2008, 01:57 AM

You seem to be talking about sophistry, which is, indeed, common in political and sociological debate. However, it is not so much that these issues cannot be debated without clichés, fallacies and non sequiturs, but that people are so emotionally invested that they will utilise any means available to convince others. The more desperate someone is the more likely they are to attempt to win a confrontation by appealing to ridicule, motive, flattery, tradition, fear, silence etc. Inversely, intellectual honesty can be measured by how averse someone is to such poor reasoning and how readily they will apologise for accidentally utilising it.

**knock7** · 05-03-2008, 06:21 AM


	As I see it, there are two components that help one win an argument.

Arguments rarely change anyone's opinion and usually leave people pissed off and resentful. It took me a very long time to learn this fact. I think this quote makes a very profound point.

"Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have your way." Daniele Vare

reference:
"How to win friends and influence people" by Dale Carnegie
"Getting to Yes" by Roger Fisher and William L. Ury

**TheLastMohican** · 05-03-2008, 06:48 AM

In public debates, it is much more important to leave the opponent speechless due to your arguments than to actually present facts. Let's face it: Most people watching debates do not pay much attention to the facts. They are looking at the debaters' faces and reactions, and also how intelligent they sound, how commanding their voices are, and how good-looking they are (yes, better-looking people are frequently perceived as winning just for that). The audience has an awfully subjective outlook on the debate. So if you can present a particularly appealing bunch of hot air, it will bulldoze the unquestioned facts of the opposition, as the facts can simply be ignored.
This is much harder to do in writing, without the visual aspect.

By the way, I love sophistry. I think it should be practiced regularly in a casual setting as practice (not to be taken seriously).

**zhangxy** · 05-05-2008, 12:20 PM

Also, a good debater should know some basic logic. Knowing when you are being deceived and when to deceive is valuable in any debate.

**nocturne** · 05-05-2008, 10:00 PM

The winner of every debate is the one who "loses", because the "loser" gets to learn something new, and the best debates occur when every participant "loses".

**Antares** · 05-06-2008, 02:36 AM

In formal debates, winning is:

- Your point over your opponent's corresponding point; if the judge crosses your opponent's point from this category of the issue, your point has triumphed (in the case of my school debates, an arrow is drawn from the description of the point to the next category, such as a horizontal rule from your point in its column to the cross ex)
- Winning more points than your opponent
- Winning, strictly speaking, talks of victory, not gains or intellectual growth. The loser does not win; as the label suggests; he or she lost. If you gained even by losing, you did not win; you lost, and nothing can change that fact. Japan did not 'win' the Korean War. She benefitted greatly, but she did not win; she was not a direct participant. But my history likes to call her the only "winner" in the war.

It's important never to concede or backdown in formal debates. Even if you think your point is not as good as your opponents and that you're genuinely wrong, never admit it. It's not an intellectual discussion; the point is winning, not being all honorable. By the way, since this thread has nothing to do with religion, it should be moved to another subforum.

**TheLastMohican** · 05-06-2008, 07:33 AM

	Originally Posted by Antares To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	By the way, since this thread has nothing to do with religion, it should be moved to another subforum.

I think it has a fair amount to do with philosophy-just enough to not merit a move to the Lounge.

**Antares** · 05-07-2008, 01:29 AM

	Originally Posted by TheLastMohican To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think it has a fair amount to do with philosophy-just enough to not merit a move to the Lounge.

I was thinking forensics.

**Monte314** · 05-10-2008, 08:34 AM

Nocturne makes an interesting point about the loser being the "winner". In the theory of machine learning, one of the things you notice early on is that most algorithms for machine intelligence require that the machine *make mistakes* in order to learn something.

This makes perfect sense, since there is no reason for a computer program to alter its behaviors while its getting things "right" (don't fix it if it ain't broke).

In this domain, at least, you can't step up until you've stumbled.

05-01-2008, 11:56 PM	#1
JasonM Member [05%] MBTI: INtP Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 200	As I see it, there are two components that help one win an argument. The first is the rightness of the side that is being argued. The more obviously right the side being defended is, the easier it is to defend it. Take, for example, the debate between creationists and non-creationists. In the eyes of most, non-creationists tend to win these arguments, because there is so much more evidence on their side. The other factor that helps in winning an argument is the intelligence and skill of the person defending the given point of view. This is the most interesting factor. It is most interesting, because it leads one to believe that many debates are just a bunch of hot air; the winner is not the one who is right, but the one who argues their point the best. It is most important in areas that are poorly defined, subjective, or the evidence is very close between the two sides. I think most political debates fit into this category. If you look at presidential debates, the winner is not the one who is necessarily right, but the one who is most eloquent and skilled at debating (look at all the problems that can occur when certain people who won their debate get elected). Because of the ambiguities, these are the most heated arguments. What's ironic about this is that they are the most pointless. For example, the person who can leave their opponent speechless may "win" the debate, but because the two sides are so ambiguous, there is no definitive answer as to whether the winner is on the right side (supposing there even is a "right side"). What does it mean to win an argument, but to very easily be wrong? It does great things for the ego, but does little for determining truth; if the speechless loser in a debate were smart enough to be able to come up with a poignant final counterpoint, they would win.
JasonM is offline post a comment

05-02-2008, 01:57 AM	#2
Rowan Member [06%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 257	You seem to be talking about sophistry, which is, indeed, common in political and sociological debate. However, it is not so much that these issues cannot be debated without clichés, fallacies and non sequiturs, but that people are so emotionally invested that they will utilise any means available to convince others. The more desperate someone is the more likely they are to attempt to win a confrontation by appealing to ridicule, motive, flattery, tradition, fear, silence etc. Inversely, intellectual honesty can be measured by how averse someone is to such poor reasoning and how readily they will apologise for accidentally utilising it.
Rowan is offline post a comment

05-03-2008, 06:48 AM	#4
TheLastMohican Core Member [187%] MBTI: ENTJ Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 7,498	In public debates, it is much more important to leave the opponent speechless due to your arguments than to actually present facts. Let's face it: Most people watching debates do not pay much attention to the facts. They are looking at the debaters' faces and reactions, and also how intelligent they sound, how commanding their voices are, and how good-looking they are (yes, better-looking people are frequently perceived as winning just for that). The audience has an awfully subjective outlook on the debate. So if you can present a particularly appealing bunch of hot air, it will bulldoze the unquestioned facts of the opposition, as the facts can simply be ignored. This is much harder to do in writing, without the visual aspect. By the way, I love sophistry. I think it should be practiced regularly in a casual setting as practice (not to be taken seriously).
TheLastMohican is offline post a comment

05-05-2008, 12:20 PM	#5
zhangxy New Member [01%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 56	Also, a good debater should know some basic logic. Knowing when you are being deceived and when to deceive is valuable in any debate.
zhangxy is offline post a comment

05-05-2008, 10:00 PM	#6
nocturne Member [03%] MBTI: INTP Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 154	The winner of every debate is the one who "loses", because the "loser" gets to learn something new, and the best debates occur when every participant "loses".
nocturne is offline post a comment

05-06-2008, 02:36 AM	#7
Antares Core Member [170%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 6,807	In formal debates, winning is: - Your point over your opponent's corresponding point; if the judge crosses your opponent's point from this category of the issue, your point has triumphed (in the case of my school debates, an arrow is drawn from the description of the point to the next category, such as a horizontal rule from your point in its column to the cross ex) - Winning more points than your opponent - Winning, strictly speaking, talks of victory, not gains or intellectual growth. The loser does not win; as the label suggests; he or she lost. If you gained even by losing, you did not win; you lost, and nothing can change that fact. Japan did not 'win' the Korean War. She benefitted greatly, but she did not win; she was not a direct participant. But my history likes to call her the only "winner" in the war. It's important never to concede or backdown in formal debates. Even if you think your point is not as good as your opponents and that you're genuinely wrong, never admit it. It's not an intellectual discussion; the point is winning, not being all honorable. By the way, since this thread has nothing to do with religion, it should be moved to another subforum.
Antares is offline post a comment

05-10-2008, 08:34 AM	#10
Monte314 Core Member [406%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 16,262	Nocturne makes an interesting point about the loser being the "winner". In the theory of machine learning, one of the things you notice early on is that most algorithms for machine intelligence require that the machine make mistakes in order to learn something. This makes perfect sense, since there is no reason for a computer program to alter its behaviors while its getting things "right" (don't fix it if it ain't broke). In this domain, at least, you can't step up until you've stumbled.
Monte314 is offline post a comment