- Messages
- 1,074
I have no formal education in debate. I've never been part of a debate club, and I am not an expert on this subject.
This thread is an opportunity to share your most favorite or most effective debate tactics, as well as your most disliked and hated tactics. Any tactics at all, really. Let's pour out all we know. It'll be fun!
Here are my favorites:
Argumentum ad absurdum:
Define your terms:
Socratic reasoning:
Here are my most disliked:
Apples and oranges
Agree to disagree:
Rejecting the principle of charity:
So those are my most liked and disliked. What are yours?
This thread is an opportunity to share your most favorite or most effective debate tactics, as well as your most disliked and hated tactics. Any tactics at all, really. Let's pour out all we know. It'll be fun!
Here are my favorites:
Argumentum ad absurdum:
This one is my go-to. I used it, I think, exclusively in the other topic about Hitler. My understanding of the tactic is to take an opponent's claim, and scale it until it breaks. If it doesn't break, then it is valid logic, and should be agreed with. If it breaks, then it's invalid, and should be disagreed with. You can find out which is which by using a little imagination to conceive of a situation where your opponent's logic breaks down.
Examples:
A: "Based on these statistics of this small population, black people are dumber than white people"
B: "When you expand the sample size to include these two neighboring areas, the statistics even out."
A: "Hitler is bad because he killed people"
B: "Is it bad for you to kill someone in self defense? If not, then killing is not always bad. You'd need to explain the difference" (which one should be able to easily do)
Examples:
A: "Based on these statistics of this small population, black people are dumber than white people"
B: "When you expand the sample size to include these two neighboring areas, the statistics even out."
A: "Hitler is bad because he killed people"
B: "Is it bad for you to kill someone in self defense? If not, then killing is not always bad. You'd need to explain the difference" (which one should be able to easily do)
Define your terms:
Sometimes people like to play fast and loose with words, and unknowingly or not, try to slip things by you by packing complex ideas inside of simple words. For example a group that you disagree with might be called "The Good Guys". How could you be against the good guys? Doesn't that make you a bad guy? Don't fall into this trap. Question what this group actually does. Who are they really? Having these questions answered puts you in a much better position, because now you're dealing with the actual rather than the title.
Example(s):
A: "God allowed slavery, and slavery is bad, so God is bad".
B: "What did slavery in those years consist of? If you were an Israelite slave you had to do 7 years toil and then you get freed and also got your own plot of land so that you could be independent. That doesn't sound so bad"
A: "We're Antifa. If you're against us, you're a Nazi!"
B: "Yes, but what do you do?"
A: "Violently brawl with peaceful demonstrations!"
B: "That's why I'm against you"
Example(s):
A: "God allowed slavery, and slavery is bad, so God is bad".
B: "What did slavery in those years consist of? If you were an Israelite slave you had to do 7 years toil and then you get freed and also got your own plot of land so that you could be independent. That doesn't sound so bad"
A: "We're Antifa. If you're against us, you're a Nazi!"
B: "Yes, but what do you do?"
A: "Violently brawl with peaceful demonstrations!"
B: "That's why I'm against you"
Socratic reasoning:
I don't like to directly state things, because it opens me up to "attack", as it were. Instead I like to ask innocent little questions that probe my opponent down a path of reasoning of my choosing. This is also one of my go-to's and can be combined with ad absurdum. The only things stated as fact while using this tactic should be unassailable, lest you lose momentum.
A: "God is bad!"
B: "Why do you say that?"
A: "Because he punishes people"
B: "Your parents punished you when you were a child, were they bad?"
A: "No, they did it because they loved me"
A: "God is bad!"
B: "Why do you say that?"
A: "Because he punishes people"
B: "Your parents punished you when you were a child, were they bad?"
A: "No, they did it because they loved me"
Here are my most disliked:
Apples and oranges
Whenever I use an analogy, people will be like "BUT IT'S DIFFERENT, IT'S NOT EXACTLY THE SAME SO IT DOESN'T COUNT!".
That's the point of an analogy, though. It is necessary to compare the situation against a different, yet similar situation. That's what an analogy is. Pointing out the differences does not invalidate the similarities. Apples and oranges can still be compared in all sorts of ways.
Examples:
A: "That's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater"
B: "That's nothing like my situation! First of all, I would never throw out a baby!"
That's the point of an analogy, though. It is necessary to compare the situation against a different, yet similar situation. That's what an analogy is. Pointing out the differences does not invalidate the similarities. Apples and oranges can still be compared in all sorts of ways.
Examples:
A: "That's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater"
B: "That's nothing like my situation! First of all, I would never throw out a baby!"
Agree to disagree:
No, you're just wrong and don't want to admit it. You want to pretend our claims are both equally valid. Unless we're debating which flavor of ice cream is better, no, our claims are not equally valid. Even if we're both wrong, one of us is more wrong. That person is usually one who suggests a stalemate.
Rejecting the principle of charity:
The principle of charity suggests that you should attack the strongest version of your opponent's argument. If someone makes a leap in logic or makes a tiny slip-up, this should be overlooked. If one presents an argument in a weak way, the argument should be considered as if it were presented in a strong way. One should not focus on what, exactly, was said, but the idea that they're trying to express.
Example: This is the post that got me banned from The Escapist. . Here, Gethsemani focuses on a few specific words and rejects all attempts to reframe another user's argument in a way that makes it stronger, even saying "you can't get around what CriticalGaming actually wrote."
This is an undue focus on semantics and terminology and a willful disregard of the actual argument. Gethsemani had no interest in discussing the subject in good faith.
Example: This is the post that got me banned from The Escapist. . Here, Gethsemani focuses on a few specific words and rejects all attempts to reframe another user's argument in a way that makes it stronger, even saying "you can't get around what CriticalGaming actually wrote."
This is an undue focus on semantics and terminology and a willful disregard of the actual argument. Gethsemani had no interest in discussing the subject in good faith.
So those are my most liked and disliked. What are yours?
some goodshit rightth ere right
