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.
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.
Last edited by Wind Song; 05-29-2012 at 01:00 PM.
Challenge the premise. Don't get sucked into arguing their false assumptions.
"when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
"You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
“Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho
Last edited by fj1200; 05-29-2012 at 01:10 PM.
"when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
"You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
“Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho
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
“… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.
- 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
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.
Last edited by Wind Song; 05-29-2012 at 01:17 PM.
"when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
"You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
“Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho
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.
Last edited by Wind Song; 05-29-2012 at 01:21 PM.
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
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
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.
Last edited by Wind Song; 05-29-2012 at 01:31 PM.
See, I could have argued that one, lol. She could have switched context without switching topic, using the historical evidence of women being the most strict enforcers of Victorian ideals back in their time, both in Europe, and in the United States. While there were opponents to that ideology, there were thousands upon thousands of women who truly believed in those same ideals, and to be sure, they weren't all bad ones.
"Government screws up everything. If government says black, you can bet it's white. If government says sit still for your safety, you'd better run for your life!"
--Wayne Allyn Root
www.rootforamerica.com
www.FairTax.org
No one is telling you not to follow your heart, but debate using your head, and accept that sometimes, you're just going to be wrong. We've all been there on here, and we've all gotten a little too heated, because we all inherently care about we're discussing, so that's gonna happen. The key is being able to pull yourself back from it, and no when you've said your full piece on a subject. Their doesn't really have to be a winner and a loser.
There have been several times where I've walked into a debate talking about what I've seen of the oppositions position, and trying to bring across that perspective on the argument. Usually, I reserve this for when I feel a particular line of thought isn't being represented, and should be talked about.
My biggest thing is making sure not to tell people how they feel. This is probably the biggest debating no-no there is, because there is not a single person on this Earth who likes being told how they feel, and so all that gets accomplish is getting their blood up, and the debate starts to go away. It's also often used as a way to slight someone in a backhanded way, using it in a pejorative manner to evoke an emotional response.
"Government screws up everything. If government says black, you can bet it's white. If government says sit still for your safety, you'd better run for your life!"
--Wayne Allyn Root
www.rootforamerica.com
www.FairTax.org
I may be wrong in my facts, I may be wrong in my premise and assumptions. I am NOT wrong about how I feel. I can speak that truth from the authority of my own experience.
Pulling back before things get too heated is a very good suggestion. Yes, there doesn't have to be a winner and loser.
I've had the experience here of people not only telling what I feel but telling me what I am. I can accept suggestions that address what I'm doing or not doing, but not what I am.
It doesn't matter what other people do, because I have no control over them. I can do a better job of avoiding telling people what they feel or who they are.
It goes both ways. Don't call me stupid, idiotic, moronic, libtard, dyke, man hater, or any other such insults and expect me to address your debate points respectfully.
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill