Debate tactics - a casual discussion

[Aunt Spiker]

What debate tactics do you like to use or do you avoid (etc)?

What debate tactics do others use against you that you like or that you avoid engaging further with (etc)?

I have given you the topic - discuss.

 

[windovervocalcords]

What debate tactics do you like to use or do you avoid (etc)?

What debate tactics do others use against you that you like or that you avoid engaging further with (etc)?

I have given you the topic - discuss.

I think it's difficult to argue without succumbing to any one of many logical fallacies.

I'm just as likely to argue without reason as anyone else.

The people I most enjoy debating with are respectful of other points of view and I've been most moved when someone at least acknowledges that you have made a point even if they disagree with it.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I agree, my views are the same in those regards - I try to be respectful and prefer that others do the same but I know it's hard.

I loath when they resort to name calling and derogatory and other such comments or when others attempt to derail the debate by making it personal.

I use to back out of debates when that started but, lately, I haven't been doing that, and it really seems to piss people off more to continue to debate the subject while ignoring their personal slants.

 

[lizzie]

I've never taken a debate or speech class (when I was young, I was much too shy to even consider it). To me a discussion forum is more of a place to toss out ideas for digestion.

That being said, I try to maintain objectivity and minimize my emotional-based responses, but I voice what I think, then let other people tear it apart if they have the need to do so. I don't buy into the idea that only the intellectually superior have valid ideas, and I try to see what I call the "heart" (not to be confused with emotionalism) behind the voice.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Same here - in a vis a vis debate forum I don't think I'd fare so well, I'm not a confrontatoinal person.

I've always loved debating online, though, and I use to feel bad if I happened ot offend someone even when I wasn't being blatantly offensive simply by having a view...often I'd back out and appologize.

But being on this forum really made me realize that it's not necessary to bail on a debate topic just because some people are sensitive ... it's important to keep things civil and if they take offense to my efforts to do so there's nothing I can do for them.

I take a tally, now, of all debates that boil down to personal attacks and so forth because of those who get frustrated and angry that their view isn't swaying mine ... just for fun.

 

[lizzie]

I try not to offend, but I don't avoid offending at the expense of hurt feelings. Feelings are one of those things that have to be dealt with at some point in one's life. If I took personal offense every time someone disagreed with me, I would be a quivering pile of jello.:mrgreen:

 

[Aunt Spiker]

LOL

I often have views that go against "popular norm" ... today I called 'prostitutes' whores to make a sarcastic point in a post about why it isn't legal and someone ran to the mods and whined about me simply because I used the term. LOL

Offend is my middle name! I am Aunt Offend Spiker!

 

[lizzie]

Perhaps we could start a club for offensive girls.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

What debate tactics do you like to use or do you avoid (etc)?

What debate tactics do others use against you that you like or that you avoid engaging further with (etc)?

I have given you the topic - discuss.

The tactics I use in debate depend on who I'm debating. There are no tactics I won't use. Here are some of my favorite tactics (in no particular order):

1. Surprise your opponent. Anticipate his or her arguments.

2. All ideologies have weaknesses. Attack the weaknesses, but not directly. It's better to ask questions of your opponent, and force him or her onto defense. By asking questions you control the debate. Attacks clothed in the guise of questions prevent your opponent from counterattacking effectively. But there is one big caveat to this approach, viz., don't ask a question unless you already know the answer.

3. Attack leftists from the left, and attack conservatives from the right. They don't anticipate such attacks and are usually unprepared to defend themselves effectively.

4. This is cyberspace, not real life. Ultimately, there is no winning or losing if one is emotionally detached. Detachment prevents anyone from making you mad or sad. If you are detached there are only three things possible in an internet debate: (a) learning from others, (b) exchanging information, and (c) amusement.

5. Be nice, until it's time not to be nice.

 

[Joe1991]

I simply try to be clear and concise, and respect that the other person might truly beleve the horse **** they're peddling. :2razz:

Use of facts is of course the best "tactic", humor second, imo.

 

[Redress]

What debate tactics do you like to use or do you avoid (etc)?

What debate tactics do others use against you that you like or that you avoid engaging further with (etc)?

I have given you the topic - discuss.

I absolutely hate slippery slope arguments with a passion. If the discussion is gay marriage, some one is going to extend it into polygamy and bestiality is one example, and is patently false.

I like to ask questions of people I am arguing against, trying to make them explain how they came to an idea, which usually allows for a good chance to show errors in the chain of logic. I also think it is important to admit when you are wrong, or when people on your side of the aisle do things you disagree with. It makes it harder for people to dismiss you as simply partisan.

 

[Objective Voice]

Me, I try to stay away from personal attacks even when I'm the one being attacked. Rarely do I respond in kind as it lends nothing to the discussion at hand. However, I have observed several posters use this ploy as an attempt to derail the subject. It works...until someone has the wherewithall to bring the topic back around and insist on civility. I've done that quite a few times. (But sorry, mods...can't be a moderator. For one, I mainly post from work [Shhhhh!!] and another my wife would kill me; she think I'm on the computer way too much when I'm at home as it is. :mrgreen: )

It's hard to be "objective" and leave your personal or political views at the perverbial door, but I do try. It helps if you can root your point of view in fact and can provide a legitmate source to support your claim, if deemed necessary.

One thing I try never to do is get involved in a discussion I know nothing about. As I'm fond of saying, "do your homework". Study up beforehand.

I'm not opposed to rubbing someone's nose in it so to speak if they're being a butthead about an issue and I can clearly turn the debate back on them, but I try very hard not to go there or to gloat about it. (But sometimes, some people deserve it.) This notwithstanding, I try to remain respectful to others and their opinions and objective on all points as best I can. Moreover, I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong about something.

Like Albert Di Salvo, I also try to anticipate the questions others may ask and have my answer(s) prepared for their response. I ask questions and am very willing to learn from others. The only thing that rubs me the wrong way when "debating" is when people make it personal. At that point, I tend to bow out of the discussion.

 

[RightinNYC]

There are a large number of people who I've been very impressed with in terms of their ability to convey an idea and make an argument. When I read something that those people have written, I always assume the best, giving them the benefit of the doubt and trying to fully explain the reasons why I agree or disagree with them.

There are also some people who I believe are either incapable of or unwilling to think critically about their arguments, recognizing the strengths and weaknesses. These people tend to base their arguments on insults, trite slogans, broad generalizations, and a stark refusal to acknowledge their errors. When I read something that these people have written, I generally assume the worst, trying to explain the reasoning behind my arguments, but giving up quickly if I can see that it's pointless.

Then there's the great unknown.

There are also people who generally fall into one of these categories on most topics, but tend to skew toward the other when we're discussing a particular issue.

I've never really had a problem with logical fallacies, as I don't think they're the be-all or end-all of whether an argument has value. They're quite useful sometimes, as you can use them as an argumentative tool to pointing out the flaws in the poster's position.

I also really like the socratic method, even if it's difficult to use in a forum organized like this.

 

[Grim17]

What debate tactics do you like to use or do you avoid (etc)?

What debate tactics do others use against you that you like or that you avoid engaging further with (etc)?

I have given you the topic - discuss.

I use facts and common sense when I debate. What I can't stand, is when the left doesn't like the topic, so either changes the subject, attacks the right, or both.

 

[repeter]

I use facts and common sense when I debate. What I can't stand, is when the left doesn't like the topic, so either changes the subject, attacks the right, or both.

That goes for the right as well. It goes for basically everyone, its really just human nature I think...

 

[Cassandra]

LOL

I often have views that go against "popular norm" ... today I called 'prostitutes' whores to make a sarcastic point in a post about why it isn't legal and someone ran to the mods and whined about me simply because I used the term. LOL

Offend is my middle name! I am Aunt Offend Spiker!

I am not easily offended.

I was annoyed, not offended, recently when someone said, "this is a dumb thread", then the poster proceeded to engage in debate. It is really egocentric to feel the need to opine on the quality of the thread. It is simple enough to change the channel, here.

I never anticipate that I will change anyone's mind. I do not like bullies. I look for people who are not necessarily like minded but are curious and respectful. If I learn something from someone else- either directly or because their point of view is so persuasive that I am forced to do research, I consider my time well spent.

 

[Redress]

I use facts and common sense when I debate. What I can't stand, is when the left doesn't like the topic, so either changes the subject, attacks the right, or both.

Way to bring partisanship to where it is not needed...

 

[Grim17]

Way to bring partisanship to where it is not needed...

Sorry, I wasn't trying to start anything.... Just speaking my mind.

.

 

[texmaster]

I try to support my argument with facts from other sources. My goal is to use the least biased or sites that attract the least amount of negative attention from the other side. I don't respect wiki links at all as evidence considering how easy they are to change by anyone. When the point is argued I demand the opponent supports their point with facts. If someone tries to get around a point that they were proven wrong about I can be relentless. But if the point is lost on the person then its time to move on. You get respect when you give it.

I absolutely cannot stand those who try to label an argument then not debate the points being raised. You don't win the argument by trying to identify the type. Its the lowest form of debate in my opinion because its an easy way out of actually debating the topic at hand.

The trolling accusation is flung around with far too much frequency as well. Not saying anything about this board at all just an observation overall. Just because you don't like the opinion being given to you that doesn't make it trolling.

My 2 cents