Learning How to Debate

[Wind Song]

I've never taken debate classes and I'm obviously unskilled at it. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. Keep in mind I'm attending to POSITIVE feedback. Tell me how to do it, not how not to do it.

Thanks.

[fj1200]

Challenge the premise. Don't get sucked into arguing their false assumptions.

[Wind Song]

Challenge the premise. Don't get sucked into arguing their false assumptions.

Can you give me an example?

[Wind Song]

• Research all information around "the point."
• Pick a side to debate. There are always two (or more) ideas to a debate or points to argue. You must select one viewpoint and follow it through. If you are a little iffy on your argument, it will appear in your debate. You do not even have to agree with your argument, you just must commit to it in order to create a strong debate.
• Once you have researched both sides to a point, you must begin creating your debate.
• Like an essay, a debate point is a formulaic. It has an introduction, evidence, and a conclusion. The main difference is that most debates are oral. You speak in public, sometimes extemporaneously.
• Your point must have an introduction, but not a flowery introduction. Usually, you just jump to the point. You can open with a general thought or anecdote, but do not veer too far from the subject matter or else people will start fidgeting. They will not listen to your debate.
• Gather at least three pieces of evidence. Have them prepared ahead of time. You may not use them all while speaking. However, you will always have more the enough information to fall back on if there is an uncomfortable silence.
• Conclude your debate by disproving the opponent's point. You will then reaffirm the certitude of your point by repeating your thesis statement aloud.

http://www.bookrags.com/articles/31.html

[fj1200]

^A bit formal for a debate site but not bad.

Can you give me an example?

Like this response to MtnBiker:

It's "fair" because that citizen lives in a country with duly elected representatives who have enacted legislation to address a societal problem. Your example is not "fair" because that's not how it works in our country, all citizens are treated in the same manner and subject to the same laws and not the random theft as in your scenario. Now, our system may be an example of counter-intuitive incentives with aspects of enabling those who will choose not to help themselves but that is beside the point of your example.

[darin]

Google "Logical Fallacies" - study the list from Nizkor Project. When you have a good handle on what a Logical Fallacy IS, decide if you CARE if your thinking is based on them. That is to say, does logic matter to you.


Be open to a few things:

1) You may be wrong
2) You might have a bad thinking process
3) Your paradigm affects your view on the issue, but does not define the issue - does not make your viewpoint correct

[Wind Song]

When I first came to this forum, I don't think it occurred to me that this is a place where people are serious about debate. I'd participated in many political forums that were nothing more than shouting matches and repetitive "going no place" conversations. I learned to match that kind of style, which was continuous ad hominem, and the nastiest person won.

I can't say I started out wanting to learn to debate, but I'm open to it now.

I have on occassion looked at logical fallacies and have been discouraged from learning to debate. I recognized most of what I was seeing in "debate" was logical fallacy.

It's true I lead with my heart over my brain. I'm not sure that will change but I do admire people who argue well. I'm fairly intelligent, but I'm no scientist, nor am I particularly skilled in logic. Philosophy bored the snot out of me in college.

I'm trained in liberal arts, and social sciences.

[fj1200]

When I first came to this forum, I don't think it occurred to me that this is a place where people are serious about debate. I'd participated in many political forums that were nothing more than shouting matches and repetitive "going no place" conversations. I learned to match that kind of style, which was continuous ad hominem, and the nastiest person won.

I can't say I started out wanting to learn to debate, but I'm open to it now.

Some are so ignore the ones who aren't unless you like them/get along with them. Whether the debates go anywhere or not is unknown but we can reasonably disagree.

[Wind Song]

Some are so ignore the ones who aren't unless you like them/get along with them. Whether the debates go anywhere or not is unknown but we can reasonably disagree.

Yes, that's possible. In my case, it's a learning that is coming out of complete failure. I accept responsibility for going about entering this community all the wrong ways.

Nonetheless, I have about five people on ignore, for now. Hopefully, I can address the posts that I enjoy reading and challenge myself to write some that other people enjoy.

[Kathianne]

Sky, see my post about the Islamic girl in my class. Her argument went no where, as she argued against her premise:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...697#post551697

[Wind Song]

Sky, see my post about the Islamic girl in my class. Her argument went no where, as she argued against her premise:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...697#post551697

Thank you for showing me this. I'm going to have read it repeatedly. I think I make similar mistakes in debate. I'm rather slow on debate. I'm not stupid person, but I'm not skilled at this at all.

This sentence particularly interests me:

Eventually she changed her topic, she just couldn't argue against Islamic countries, nor could she bring herself to argue that no one was forced.

So, actually she was in a bind. She couldn't argue against Islamic countries, more than likely out of family loyalty, and as an American, she could not bring herself to admit that the dress is forced to a large extent.

At least, that's my best guess. This is pretty interesting.

[ConHog]

I've never taken debate classes and I'm obviously unskilled at it. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. Keep in mind I'm attending to POSITIVE feedback. Tell me how to do it, not how not to do it.

Thanks.

As I've told you before. Accept that just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they hate you. If we're arguing gay marriage , for example, accept that someone can be anti gay marriage but not hate YOU personally.

[Wind Song]

I'm open to POSITIVE suggestions.

[ConHog]

I'm open to POSITIVE suggestions.

As I've told you before. Accept that just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they hate you. If we're arguing gay marriage , for example, accept that someone can be anti gay marriage but not hate YOU personally.

^^ THIS is a positive suggestion Sky. Don't let a debate get personal where pretty soon you're feeling the need to defend anything more than the topic of the thread.

[Kathianne]

Thank you for showing me this. I'm going to have read it repeatedly. I think I make similar mistakes in debate. I'm rather slow on debate. I'm not stupid person, but I'm not skilled at this at all.

This sentence particularly interests me:

Eventually she changed her topic, she just couldn't argue against Islamic countries, nor could she bring herself to argue that no one was forced.

So, actually she was in a bind. She couldn't argue against Islamic countries, more than likely out of family loyalty, and as an American, she could not bring herself to admit that the dress is forced to a large extent.

At least, that's my best guess. This is pretty interesting.

She wasn't American, none of her family. However, she was trying to be fair. She knew that there are many Muslim women that choose hajib, burka, etc. for religious reasons. They embrace it, not a negative towards themselves. She knows that many Westerners consider those wearing hajib, burka, etc., assume they are forced to do so. She knows the Westerners are wrong.

Problem came in on getting her ducks in a row. To separate those who choose, from those forced. Yes, she recognizes that in Iran, Afghanistan where Taliban controls, the penalties are severe, including death. Truly her dissonance I think came from which 'wrong' was worse. The Westerners for saying untruth or Islamics killing or severely punishing heretics. She chose to change subject rather than come down on one side.