Report, edit, etc...Posted by Chef on 2005-07-28 at 03:59:43
I would like to discuss the many techniques, their pros and cons, which ones work best for which situations, which ones are most effective, and which ones you have simply prefer using. Also up for discussion here are which debating techniques you dislike, especially when used against you, and of course which ones you like. Kindly organize your posts so that they may be used for reference, and are simply easier to read.
Humour
When it comes to debating, especially with people whom I have great respect for, I find it helpful to lighten up spirits and keep people comfortable, and more open to conversation (despite how harsh I may seem at SEN). Many times however, such as in discussion of serious topics (the holocaust, war, mental health etc) it is important to be careful what you say, or the opposition may get offended, and be less open to your points. In my opinion, it's better to end an argument with little progress in a chuckle, than bitterly.
Facts
When presenting facts, and receiving them, it is clearly best those facts be first souse (as in, the actual fact, not something informing you of it). However, these are often scarce so we must make do with second source (from a book, or a newspaper) to base arguments of Historical meaning.
In my opinion, statistics are often worthless when judging a population, at least when they're sample statistics. In addition to that, statistics are the easiest thing to lie about, or at least bias. So many times I've seen people stating statistics right out of their ass like "80% of Iraqis are happy to have American forces arrive"; there are many things wrong with saying a statistic like that, for one, you have no idea how that statistic was gathered, next, it's not counting all the dead Iraqis, and last, it doesn't even hint that there might be some propaganda involved.
In my opinion, when it comes down to it, if your only facts are "I knew this one guy who was a member of this giant population I'm about to generalize" you should just keep your mouth shut, for the most part (like, only say something if the person is telling you about a group they're in of no more than 20 people).
Internet VS Face to Face
On the internet, you are able to look for sources and references and give undeniable proof toward your argument. In person, you're lucky if you brought something in advance, and if you start spewing out facts in person, with nothing to back it up... people just think you're a total dumb ass; at times, if you're arguing with a friend for instance, they'll take your word for it, but there are a lot of dim wits who think if they're arguing for the greater good, they're allowed to lie about facts. On the internet, you look like an even bigger dumb ass because you have the facts at the click of a few buttons, especially since wikipedia is so thorough.
One of the main advantages to arguing in person is that you won't get some snot faced loser calling you a cigarette every two seconds. People can't feel safe behind their anonymous monitor, and have to be polite, or face the consequences. No one is going to beat you up for having a well backed point, but people will if you start some **** about their mother, or their sexuality, or say something really racist.
Cursing
This one is a bit iffy. If you've seen me debate on SEN, you know I like to do this a lot. It's part of my 'style' of debating. I use it for emphasis, but to be honest, it isn't totally necessary. When someone says "Black people are more dangerous than whites" I don't want to just say "I disagree here's why" I want to say "What the **** is wrong with you. Here's why you're a disgusting prick". They essentially lead to the same point and in theory, should open the other person’s eyes and get them to realize racism will not be tolerated by strangers. (Still in theory) If everyone who was smart did this, then we would have many better informed people, since their parents screwed up.
I wouldn't swear (at least, not as often as I do normally) in a professional (professional means we're getting paid) environment. This is because, while I believe casual swearing in a friendly argument with friends can lighten the mood, it is quite possibly to distract the other professional, and listeners on what I'm trying to get across. This is not to say swearing doesn't help me get points across, it does, just you don't get many opportunities when you're both being polite, and you've both devoted your career to your argument (so, in theory, they should both be pretty solid and there should be nothing your opponent does that's terribly offensive).
Idiots
When you argue with idiots you have a few options at your disposal. On the internet, you can simply ignore them while they spam "SQUELCH = GG HAHAHAHA" and promptly start talking with someone else, or you can belittle them and burn some time showing them how horribly racist and irrational they are. Unfortunately however, idiots often think other people are idiots and spread catastrophe and make any kind of worthwhile argument impossible. It is especially annoying when an idiot sides with your argument, and then proceeds to make several ill constructed points that make being on your side of the argument, incredibly unattractive. What to do about these people? I just try to make a blank statement that anything they say is not encouraged by myself, and often, because I'm a dumb ass (for the purpose of my point, a dumb ass is just a person who makes mistakes), I'll even waste my time arguing with them and telling them to **** off.
Relevancy
Going off topic to prove a point, often that the other slandering the other person. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's downright stupid, especially if the person is actually putting up hard facts and a good argument.
To start you off, I guess, hopefully you'll actually make some replies, even if you only read one of those. Considering that this topic (as opposed to other, totally nowhere topics about ghosts and events that are clouded in propaganda) actually has some affect on our lives, and perhaps will help us become better debaters I expect some feedback.
Humour
When it comes to debating, especially with people whom I have great respect for, I find it helpful to lighten up spirits and keep people comfortable, and more open to conversation (despite how harsh I may seem at SEN). Many times however, such as in discussion of serious topics (the holocaust, war, mental health etc) it is important to be careful what you say, or the opposition may get offended, and be less open to your points. In my opinion, it's better to end an argument with little progress in a chuckle, than bitterly.
Facts
When presenting facts, and receiving them, it is clearly best those facts be first souse (as in, the actual fact, not something informing you of it). However, these are often scarce so we must make do with second source (from a book, or a newspaper) to base arguments of Historical meaning.
In my opinion, statistics are often worthless when judging a population, at least when they're sample statistics. In addition to that, statistics are the easiest thing to lie about, or at least bias. So many times I've seen people stating statistics right out of their ass like "80% of Iraqis are happy to have American forces arrive"; there are many things wrong with saying a statistic like that, for one, you have no idea how that statistic was gathered, next, it's not counting all the dead Iraqis, and last, it doesn't even hint that there might be some propaganda involved.
In my opinion, when it comes down to it, if your only facts are "I knew this one guy who was a member of this giant population I'm about to generalize" you should just keep your mouth shut, for the most part (like, only say something if the person is telling you about a group they're in of no more than 20 people).
Internet VS Face to Face
On the internet, you are able to look for sources and references and give undeniable proof toward your argument. In person, you're lucky if you brought something in advance, and if you start spewing out facts in person, with nothing to back it up... people just think you're a total dumb ass; at times, if you're arguing with a friend for instance, they'll take your word for it, but there are a lot of dim wits who think if they're arguing for the greater good, they're allowed to lie about facts. On the internet, you look like an even bigger dumb ass because you have the facts at the click of a few buttons, especially since wikipedia is so thorough.
One of the main advantages to arguing in person is that you won't get some snot faced loser calling you a cigarette every two seconds. People can't feel safe behind their anonymous monitor, and have to be polite, or face the consequences. No one is going to beat you up for having a well backed point, but people will if you start some **** about their mother, or their sexuality, or say something really racist.
Cursing
This one is a bit iffy. If you've seen me debate on SEN, you know I like to do this a lot. It's part of my 'style' of debating. I use it for emphasis, but to be honest, it isn't totally necessary. When someone says "Black people are more dangerous than whites" I don't want to just say "I disagree here's why" I want to say "What the **** is wrong with you. Here's why you're a disgusting prick". They essentially lead to the same point and in theory, should open the other person’s eyes and get them to realize racism will not be tolerated by strangers. (Still in theory) If everyone who was smart did this, then we would have many better informed people, since their parents screwed up.
I wouldn't swear (at least, not as often as I do normally) in a professional (professional means we're getting paid) environment. This is because, while I believe casual swearing in a friendly argument with friends can lighten the mood, it is quite possibly to distract the other professional, and listeners on what I'm trying to get across. This is not to say swearing doesn't help me get points across, it does, just you don't get many opportunities when you're both being polite, and you've both devoted your career to your argument (so, in theory, they should both be pretty solid and there should be nothing your opponent does that's terribly offensive).
Idiots
When you argue with idiots you have a few options at your disposal. On the internet, you can simply ignore them while they spam "SQUELCH = GG HAHAHAHA" and promptly start talking with someone else, or you can belittle them and burn some time showing them how horribly racist and irrational they are. Unfortunately however, idiots often think other people are idiots and spread catastrophe and make any kind of worthwhile argument impossible. It is especially annoying when an idiot sides with your argument, and then proceeds to make several ill constructed points that make being on your side of the argument, incredibly unattractive. What to do about these people? I just try to make a blank statement that anything they say is not encouraged by myself, and often, because I'm a dumb ass (for the purpose of my point, a dumb ass is just a person who makes mistakes), I'll even waste my time arguing with them and telling them to **** off.
Relevancy
Going off topic to prove a point, often that the other slandering the other person. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's downright stupid, especially if the person is actually putting up hard facts and a good argument.
To start you off, I guess, hopefully you'll actually make some replies, even if you only read one of those. Considering that this topic (as opposed to other, totally nowhere topics about ghosts and events that are clouded in propaganda) actually has some affect on our lives, and perhaps will help us become better debaters I expect some feedback.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by brutetal on 2005-07-28 at 04:44:43
Who else think this should be pinned? Its a great guide for everyone!
Their should also be a secton about grammar/spelling.
Their should also be a secton about grammar/spelling.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Chef on 2005-07-28 at 05:08:30
I seriously hope you're kidding... you just made a grammatical mistake yourself (there, not their). But yeah, it's a valid topic.
Spelling & Grammar
I don't really care about spelling/grammar too much as long as it's coherrent and the person isn't being downright rude and disrespectful. if you want to talk like this don't do it for long posts. If you want to talk like this, don't make stupid mistakes. if u wanna takl liek dis it beter be a jeok cuz itz nto wort tying redang ur argumentzor. Typos are fine, and just simply not being very good at English. I'll be the first to admit my writing is terrible. Run-ons, spelling mistakes (like hopfully, instead of hopefully) and simply awful sentence structure... but at least you know what I'm talking about.
Spelling & Grammar
I don't really care about spelling/grammar too much as long as it's coherrent and the person isn't being downright rude and disrespectful. if you want to talk like this don't do it for long posts. If you want to talk like this, don't make stupid mistakes. if u wanna takl liek dis it beter be a jeok cuz itz nto wort tying redang ur argumentzor. Typos are fine, and just simply not being very good at English. I'll be the first to admit my writing is terrible. Run-ons, spelling mistakes (like hopfully, instead of hopefully) and simply awful sentence structure... but at least you know what I'm talking about.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Shapechanger on 2005-07-28 at 05:13:29
This is more Guide-like than a 'Debate about debating', I agree.
Spammers and idiots ruin good topic...
The worse thing I find, though, is when someone misses the point or something, replies, and leads the entire discussion off-topic...
For example:
http://www.staredit.net/index.php?showtopic=18310
EDIT: I really don't mind spelling mistakes so long I can accurately tell what they meant.
Spammers and idiots ruin good topic...
The worse thing I find, though, is when someone misses the point or something, replies, and leads the entire discussion off-topic...
For example:
http://www.staredit.net/index.php?showtopic=18310
EDIT: I really don't mind spelling mistakes so long I can accurately tell what they meant.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Chef on 2005-07-28 at 05:49:18
I just figured there would be some disagreement since a lot of people (or maybe just a few with very big mouths) have beef (so to speak) with my style of debating. If you like, we can talk about our thought processes (amateur psychologist style), and see how they reflect with what other people think we must have been thinking during a post. I'm willing to be the object of such discussion, so if anyone remembers a post in a debate I made, feel free to analyse it here.
Sarcasm
This is a tool I've often used in arguments, that unfortunatly goes unoticed. Its purpose is to get people to lighten up, however, it often just bewilders the opposition, and causes them to go off topic. I think it's worth it to risk using sarcasm, as long as you have good reason to believe that they would have to be extremly slow not to get it. Sarcasm that is intended to mock one unknowing person, and entertain listeners should have no place in serious argument, other than to slander the opponents intelligence. This unfortunatly means you can't be too gullible, for fear of being embarrased, which is by all means dangerous. It is best not to use sarcasm (or, rather, a strait out lie for cheap laughs) in situations that could become dangerous should they become real (I'm sure we've all heard the story about the sheperd kid).
ADDITION:
Editing/Deleting Posts
This is one that should be obvious, but to some people, it really isn't. When you edited a post, you should ask yourself three things. Are you editing a post someone has already replied to? Clearly if they have, it's too late in an argument, unless they were agreeing and you're only adding to the post... even then it's a judgment call. Are you editing a post while someone is in the middle of replying? Iffy, but make sure you're quick about it if you do. Are you editing a post that is very old? This is just a big no-no. Editing a post under any of these conditions basically gives the person perfectly good reason to believe you deleted incriminating evidence, even if you were just fixing a few typos. As far as deleting posts goes, only delete a post that is irelevent, and hasn't been responded to. Never delete a post someone made the effort to argue against, unless your intention is to **** them off. I don't know if moderators can see deleted posts or not, but it's totally unfair to the person who put effort into a post. In short, don't do it if you can avoid it.
Sarcasm
This is a tool I've often used in arguments, that unfortunatly goes unoticed. Its purpose is to get people to lighten up, however, it often just bewilders the opposition, and causes them to go off topic. I think it's worth it to risk using sarcasm, as long as you have good reason to believe that they would have to be extremly slow not to get it. Sarcasm that is intended to mock one unknowing person, and entertain listeners should have no place in serious argument, other than to slander the opponents intelligence. This unfortunatly means you can't be too gullible, for fear of being embarrased, which is by all means dangerous. It is best not to use sarcasm (or, rather, a strait out lie for cheap laughs) in situations that could become dangerous should they become real (I'm sure we've all heard the story about the sheperd kid).
ADDITION:
Editing/Deleting Posts
This is one that should be obvious, but to some people, it really isn't. When you edited a post, you should ask yourself three things. Are you editing a post someone has already replied to? Clearly if they have, it's too late in an argument, unless they were agreeing and you're only adding to the post... even then it's a judgment call. Are you editing a post while someone is in the middle of replying? Iffy, but make sure you're quick about it if you do. Are you editing a post that is very old? This is just a big no-no. Editing a post under any of these conditions basically gives the person perfectly good reason to believe you deleted incriminating evidence, even if you were just fixing a few typos. As far as deleting posts goes, only delete a post that is irelevent, and hasn't been responded to. Never delete a post someone made the effort to argue against, unless your intention is to **** them off. I don't know if moderators can see deleted posts or not, but it's totally unfair to the person who put effort into a post. In short, don't do it if you can avoid it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Infested-Jerk on 2005-07-28 at 10:40:24
it's good to note in a debate that all sides should BE RESPECTFUL, ORGANIZED, WILLING TO HEAR THE OTHER SIDE'S ARGUMENT, and the fact that they shouldn't resort to flaming, personal attacks, mudslinging, racist or otherwise bad remarks. Debates should only cover the debates topic, or other matter involved such as in a debate over drugs, a argument that cafiene shouldn't be considered a drug in sports would be appropiate.
So in other words:
Respect
No flaming personal insults
Idiots are to be ignored or debated till they are defeated an all newb like with no response
Try to keep close on topic.
So in other words:
Respect
No flaming personal insults
Idiots are to be ignored or debated till they are defeated an all newb like with no response
Try to keep close on topic.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-07-28 at 12:13:03
Well, then it's hard for Psycho to do a "Normal" debate cause all he does is call people losers all the time 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by wesmic da pimp on 2005-07-28 at 14:48:36
It's just an agressive approach, there are too many idiots here that state fallicies and don't know any English or grammar.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Trigonometry on 2005-07-28 at 14:53:59
Repeating without reason
Con: Your opinion will lessly be taken seriously.
Pro: You'll annoy your way to victory in the debate. Because noone will debate with you anymore.
Changing the subject
Con: You look like you can't debate the subject
Pro: ...
Con: Your opinion will lessly be taken seriously.
Pro: You'll annoy your way to victory in the debate. Because noone will debate with you anymore.
Changing the subject
Con: You look like you can't debate the subject
Pro: ...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Chef on 2005-07-28 at 20:39:08
I wouldn't call that victory, Trig, I'd call that some prick who just wasted a lot of his or her own time doing next to nothing.
If you want to discuss that here, post a quote and I'll explain my thought process. Don't just take a stab at me. I don't know why you put normal in quotes, when I never said normal. Just because I called you a loser, doesn't mean I call people losers in EVERY argument.
Generalizations
Don't. Sample statistics are almost never accurate and only succeed in annoying people who actually put thought into their argument.
QUOTE
Well, then it's hard for Psycho to do a "Normal" debate cause all he does is call people losers all the time
If you want to discuss that here, post a quote and I'll explain my thought process. Don't just take a stab at me. I don't know why you put normal in quotes, when I never said normal. Just because I called you a loser, doesn't mean I call people losers in EVERY argument.
Generalizations
Don't. Sample statistics are almost never accurate and only succeed in annoying people who actually put thought into their argument.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-07-29 at 01:03:18
I agree with most of what you said, but you left out one very very important topic. It's the main reason why there are debates. (Excluding personal fun) And that is to resolve an argument.
Many people don't have the balls nor the ego to admit when they're wrong. And if you are right, don't start thinking you're a genius cause you won a little debate about something. Every idiot proves a genius wrong ever now and then. Nothing really special. And if you are the idiot, chances are, you shouldn't be debating. Just listen and ask honest questions. I seriously have much more respect for idiots trying to learn and not remain idiots, then idiots trying to act like they're not idiots.
Many people don't have the balls nor the ego to admit when they're wrong. And if you are right, don't start thinking you're a genius cause you won a little debate about something. Every idiot proves a genius wrong ever now and then. Nothing really special. And if you are the idiot, chances are, you shouldn't be debating. Just listen and ask honest questions. I seriously have much more respect for idiots trying to learn and not remain idiots, then idiots trying to act like they're not idiots.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Chef on 2005-07-29 at 01:16:48
Ending an Argument
There are a large number of idiots who don't know when they've been proven wrong, beyond a doubt, so this can be irritating. I suggest you do your best to just cut arguments with idiots cold turkey. The downside to this, is, every moron who thinks they're the **** will kick you in the nuts as you leave the argument with something stupid like "you're only stopping because you agree with me!" or "you only think my answers are total bs because they prove you wrong". If you can, ignore these fellows. If you're arguing with someone you respect, it's really easy. Just say that you've hit a point which cannot be passed and that you're unable to swade the opposition. If you lost, admit you're wrong, and congratulate the former oppositon, they spent time to share their knowledge, so an "I back down" doesn't cut it after several posts. You'll be lucky if you can find someone respectable in an argument at SEN... which really sucks. You guys need to work on it.
There are a large number of idiots who don't know when they've been proven wrong, beyond a doubt, so this can be irritating. I suggest you do your best to just cut arguments with idiots cold turkey. The downside to this, is, every moron who thinks they're the **** will kick you in the nuts as you leave the argument with something stupid like "you're only stopping because you agree with me!" or "you only think my answers are total bs because they prove you wrong". If you can, ignore these fellows. If you're arguing with someone you respect, it's really easy. Just say that you've hit a point which cannot be passed and that you're unable to swade the opposition. If you lost, admit you're wrong, and congratulate the former oppositon, they spent time to share their knowledge, so an "I back down" doesn't cut it after several posts. You'll be lucky if you can find someone respectable in an argument at SEN... which really sucks. You guys need to work on it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by T.r.u.e.P.r.o on 2005-07-29 at 01:22:54
You don't seem very smart.
The fact that you wasted time writing this guide supprts that notion.
The fact that you wasted time writing this guide supprts that notion.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Chef on 2005-07-29 at 01:23:46
It's not a guide. It's a form of self-help, dolt.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by T.r.u.e.P.r.o on 2005-07-29 at 01:24:54
You aren't very funny either.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Chef on 2005-07-29 at 01:26:49
It wasn't a joke =D
Report, edit, etc...Posted by T.r.u.e.P.r.o on 2005-07-29 at 01:29:10
Explain how writing a self help guide is different than writing a guide.
ADDITION:
In addition, explain why you think that spending your time on this was more productive than spending it on something, well, productive.
ADDITION:
In addition, explain why you think that spending your time on this was more productive than spending it on something, well, productive.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Chef on 2005-07-29 at 01:31:57
QUOTE
just cut arguments with idiots cold turkey.
If you've got a problem go discuss it with ICLers, I don't give a rats ass. Please refrain from going off topic again.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by T.r.u.e.P.r.o on 2005-07-29 at 01:34:31
If that's your idea of winning an argument then you really shouldn't have wasted time on writing this guide.
You should at least have some experience in winning debates before you go and write up a how-to.
edit: I just realized who you remind me of: Rush Limbaugh.
You should at least have some experience in winning debates before you go and write up a how-to.
edit: I just realized who you remind me of: Rush Limbaugh.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by The_Shattered_moose on 2005-07-29 at 02:17:57
So true, was your purpose in this thread to attempt to irritate PT, if so, you're wasting your time, I suppose its also possible that you're just trying to pick a fight for purposes which I do not understand. And whats wrong with Rush Limbaugh? Politics needs some eccentric people.
<<<On topic>>>
I think it would actually be highly useful as a sticky, it might not TEACH anyone anything, but at least it could give their memory a nudge, and show what we expect.
<<<On topic>>>
I think it would actually be highly useful as a sticky, it might not TEACH anyone anything, but at least it could give their memory a nudge, and show what we expect.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-07-29 at 02:32:05
QUOTE(Shatter @ Jul 29 2005, 01:17 AM)
I think it would actually be highly useful as a sticky, it might not TEACH anyone anything, but at least it could give their memory a nudge, and show what we expect.
[right][snapback]273196[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]273196[/snapback][/right]
Exactly.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by wesmic da pimp on 2005-07-29 at 03:14:16
As for T.r.u.e.P.r.o., he lost my respect the day he came here with his idiotic sarcasm: http://www.staredit.net/index.php?showtopic=18060
Probably just an ICL'er trying to be cute. By the way, I'm sorry you have no character, Rush Limbaugh owns you.
Probably just an ICL'er trying to be cute. By the way, I'm sorry you have no character, Rush Limbaugh owns you.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by brutetal on 2005-07-29 at 04:02:54
The generalization one, I think you shouldn't use statstics unless you were 100% sure with no dobut.
EX:
4/5 Denist recommend Crest Whting tooth paste.
Those 4 could be idiots and the 5th guy could the be smart person saying your runing my job!!!
Ending an Argument, nobody really ends an arugument it just continues on and on and on, untill it just starts turning into spam and off topic and some one has to close it
EX:
4/5 Denist recommend Crest Whting tooth paste.
Those 4 could be idiots and the 5th guy could the be smart person saying your runing my job!!!
Ending an Argument, nobody really ends an arugument it just continues on and on and on, untill it just starts turning into spam and off topic and some one has to close it
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Chef on 2005-07-29 at 04:08:03
Or... more likly it could be that 4 out of 5 people agree blah blah blah, but had they taken a complete survey the results could be something like 324 out of 9098 people agree blah blah blah. Sample surveys only work when everyone else in the population is under the same living conditions.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by brutetal on 2005-07-29 at 04:10:55
QUOTE(PsychoTemplar @ Jul 29 2005, 01:08 AM)
Or... more likly it could be that 4 out of 5 people agree blah blah blah, but had they taken a complete survey the results could be something like 324 out of 9098 people agree blah blah blah. Sample surveys only work when everyone else in the population is under the same living conditions.
[right][snapback]273261[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]273261[/snapback][/right]
So whats the control and the uncontrol varible conditions?