• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tips for debate (Add your own!)

About the only advice I could offer would be to remember that well chosen adjectives act to multiply the effect of specific epithets, and that for those less than well versed in the more subtle aspects of invective, your lack of creativity in this regard will earn you demerits. For instance: "You goat tic", is certainly a reasonable enough charge to level against your opponant, but you will add to the power of your statement by applying the word "syphlitic" in conjunction. Even better if you could also remember your verbs, so that "Syphlitic goat tic" becomes "Syphlitic goat tic sucking on the diseased carcass of three day old road kill". Style, people, style!

Conversely, calling somebody a "liberal" or "conservative" by a way of really sticking it to them falls well short of the requirements for good flaming. In this case, adjectives can still bail you out a wee bit, but while "perverted liberal" or "heartless conservative" does add to your statement to a small degree, the term "typical" actually reduces the effectiveness.

Unless, of course, you add that to your more enlightened discourse, in which case "You typical liberal (or conservative) goat tic sucking on the diseased carcass of three day old road kill" is perfectly acceptable.
 
Billo_Really said:
Try to make your point without writing War and Peace. Some people get so long winded with their posts I've had to struggle just stay focused when reading them.
Click to expand...

Guilty as charged. It would help to not be long winded if more posters would allow a benefit of the doubt or ask for clarifications. (Billo_Really with whom I agree with not much generally does do that.) I tend to write longer than I should to avoid being misunderstood. It doesn't work of course, but that's usually why I do it. Shorter posts are definitely more likely to be read by me, and most likely by everybody else. I'm going to try to do better on that count.
 
On the other side of that, don't assume you're being ignored if your opponent doesn't mention your every remark.
 
Billo_Really said:
Try to keep your personal feelings toward a particular poster out of your analytical judgement when evaluating an assertion.
Click to expand...

Amen to this one which others have also mentioned. It helps to remind oneself three times a day that a personal insult, either overt or inferred, is not an intelligent rebuttal of whatever the other person said.

It helps to remind oneself five times a day that disagreement with your position is not the same thing as a personal insult.
 
Gardener said:
About the only advice I could offer would be to remember that well chosen adjectives act to multiply the effect of specific epithets, and that for those less than well versed in the more subtle aspects of invective, your lack of creativity in this regard will earn you demerits. For instance: "You goat tic", is certainly a reasonable enough charge to level against your opponant, but you will add to the power of your statement by applying the word "syphlitic" in conjunction. Even better if you could also remember your verbs, so that "Syphlitic goat tic" becomes "Syphlitic goat tic sucking on the diseased carcass of three day old road kill". Style, people, style!

Conversely, calling somebody a "liberal" or "conservative" by a way of really sticking it to them falls well short of the requirements for good flaming. In this case, adjectives can still bail you out a wee bit, but while "perverted liberal" or "heartless conservative" does add to your statement to a small degree, the term "typical" actually reduces the effectiveness.

Unless, of course, you add that to your more enlightened discourse, in which case "You typical liberal (or conservative) goat tic sucking on the diseased carcass of three day old road kill" is perfectly acceptable.
Click to expand...

I would concur that using well chosen words is in your best interest, but....speak English. Not everyone here has a college degree, not everyone here is a genius, or even what could be considered an intellectual. Someone shouldn't have to pull out a dictionary just to decipher your message. When in doubt, use simple words. Sometimes, using "fancy" words makes you look...snobby, as if you're here only to show off, not to have a serious debate.
 
alphieb said:
Try to have a sense of humor and don't take things personal.
Click to expand...

I agree, this is the best advice on here.

I'd like to add just one more thing...

Hit that "Preview Post" button before you hit the "Submit Post" button. Sometimes, re-reading your own words can make you realize what an idiot you are and give you time to amend your reply. LOL
 
People! People! People!

You think you've just had the most important point ever made...

You look for sources to legitimize your claim or to backup your point, then proceed to gather your thoughts to create a beautiful well thoughout thread...

But FIRST!!!!...

See if someone beat you to it...

Spreading out one topic over multiple threads...and even multiple forums...dilutes this site...

The Mods try to make this place as tidy and organized as possible...Going through 4 different forums and finding the same topics goes against this organization...

PLEASE look before you make that leap...
 
don't post quotes from pundits or other famous people. You end up with a group of people who agree, a group that disagrees and no debate.

example:
Posting something from Ann Coulter is guaranteed to destroy serious debate. Not because she is crazy(though she is), but because everyone already has an opinion of her.
 
1. The goal of debate should not be to win, it should be to arrive at a mutual understanding of the truth. When the goal is to win, it leads to dishonest and unfair debate tactics such as logical fallacies and flat-out ignoring the opponent's points. When the goal is to learn, everybody wins, including and especially anyone who was proven wrong.

2. If you've been proven wrong, don't rely on that false premise again until you reaffirm its merits with a valid rebuttal. If you can't come up with a valid rebuttal, then admit you were wrong and thank the person for giving you new information and perspective.

3. Know the difference between facts and opinions, and know the limited circumstances in which an opinion is valid supporting evidence. (Hint: Consider the source.)

4. Fools ignore complexity.

5. Understand and avoid committing the following logical fallacies:

Straw Man
Red Herring
Cherry Picking
False Analogy
False Dilemma
Burden of Proof
Post Hoc (Correlation not causation)
Moving the Goalpost
Texas Sharpshooter
Ad Hominem
Argumentum ad Populum
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Concequences
Faulty Generalization
 
Last edited:
Before you submit your post, just think to yourself, "Will this make me look like an ignorant asshole?"
 
Stereotypes
Avoid them. And I don't just mean racial stereotypes, although that should be obvious, I mean political stereotypes. Just because someone has Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist, Independent, liberal, conservative, or whatever in their info box under their avatar, do NOT assume they belief or agree with whatever notion you may have of what any of those words represent.
For example it is possible to be a self-described democrat and be pro-gun, or a republican and be pro-gay marriage. Don't assume you know more about the person then they know about themselves. Also don't say that someone cannot be a Republican or Democrat simply because they don't hold all the beliefs you believe a Republican or Democrat should/would have.
And lastly don't accuse them of anything, such as lying, double standards, avoidance, just because they don't have cookie-cutter political views. And that leads me into...

Indirect Responsibility
Just because someone is a democrat, republican, whatever does not mean you can hold them responsible for the actions of someone else who also identifies with that group.
Ex. Bill O'Reily is a Republican/conservative and an idiot, you are a self-described Republican/conservative, therefore you must also be an idiot as well as agree with everything he says.
Ex. President Obama is a democrat and has implemented a policy you don't agree with, therefore that democrat you are debating can be held as responsible as the President.
Ex. Just because someone is a Republican does not mean they are responsible for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.
Remember you are debating an individual not a group of individuals or an ideology, which probably does not even exist.

We all believe what we are saying
If someone says something that you disagree with, its because they honestly believe its correct. Don't assume or lie to yourself that this person is only saying what they are saying because they hate you, or have been "brainwashed" and become an automation for whatever position they are arguing. You put a lot of thought, hopefully, into your position and so did they, again hopefully. Assume that they did, if they didn't then it will come out during the debate that you have a larger pole of knowledge or perhaps considered things they didn't.

Insults
Avoid them. Even if you have a good argument, no one is going to admit they were wrong to someone whose been calling them "idiot" or "moron." It feels like if we admit to having a weaker argument we also have to admit to those personal insults being true too. And remember in all likelihood the person you are debating thought about their position a lot and has strong beliefs in them, its hard enough to swallow defeat without the victor dancing over us.
 
SEMANTICS - Try to ascertain the meaning behind a post, or the point a person was trying to make, rather than starting endless and pointless arguments about the definition of a specific word they chose to use. Words exist to express concepts, and the definitions are neither permanent nor proof.
 
Ignore the tolling.

Just don't respond to it.

Crop it out of a post you're replying to, or at most point out how they can't stick to the topic.

A troll will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
 
Don't use phrases like "So what?"

Example: Statement: Woodrow Wilson likes fascist ideals of Italy at the time. Rebuttal: So what?

So what is not a rebuttal or a debating technique, it's admission, so unless you'd like to agree with the statement - don't use it. In that same vein, "who cares" or "no one cares" is very similar. In a debate, that's a loser of a technique and avoid it.

Do not use clearly biased sources as evidence

That does NOT mean you cannot use an MSNBC news story or a Fox News story as long as it was a news program. Do not use Olberman or Hannity, Democracy NOW! nor Rush Limbaugh unless it's clearly a biased and partisan discussion. If you want a debate use facts - use evidence especially when making claims - OR - clearly identify your claims as a "belief". Opinions are still supposed to be based on facts or evidence - and what you claim as a credible source (O'Reilly or Maddow) are not credible to anyone other than those who share your "belief", and that's not a debate, that's a partisan invitation to a circle jerk.

Think about your debate and anticipate the argument against it

A badly thought out point or a knee jerk reaction into a debate causes all of the pitfalls to come out. Think about what you want to say, how you want to say it and the major point. Anticipate the arguments against it and reverse the viewpoint and try to argue against your own point. I find most times I will get into trouble on a debate by not having thought out the point nor known enough about it. Sometimes I'll think about it, research it and find out I was wrong before I even write a word down.

A note to the other good advice given so far - specifically "don't generalize" and "don't use logical fallacy", those are two of the most common pitfalls and we all delve into them at some point whether knowingly or unknowingly. And while generalizations are a bad idea, it typically depends on the person. If you know by experience a person's responses and they're typically consistent, the generalization may be accurate as hell. Just because one generalizes doesn't mean that generalization doesn't fit especially if the debaters are very familiar with each other; the converse is also true however (to everyone else's point). Secondly, logical fallacies are very common and because one uses a fallacy does not always mean the fallacy automatically revokes the person's point. They may have come to a correct conclusion via that fallacy. However more often the fallacy is a basis of the debate in which case it DOES undermine the point and the conclusion. So to further define fallacy - it's not just "don't use them", it is more like "don't base your major point on a fallacy".
 
Remember: PRESENTATION IS EVERYTHING. You may have the best argument in the entire world, but if you present it in a nasty, obnoxious way, no one is going to listen or even care. Present your position in a civil, reasonable way so it can be heard.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Remember: PRESENTATION IS EVERYTHING. You may have the best argument in the entire world, but if you present it in a nasty, obnoxious way, no one is going to listen or even care. Present your position in a civil, reasonable way so it can be heard.
Click to expand...

Presentation doesn't matter, being right does. :mrgreen:
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Remember: PRESENTATION IS EVERYTHING. You may have the best argument in the entire world, but if you present it in a nasty, obnoxious way, no one is going to listen or even care. Present your position in a civil, reasonable way so it can be heard.
Click to expand...

I've found that the less effort I put into my posts, the more 'thanks' and the more responses I get.

Well thought out and formatted posts tend to go ignored on this forum.
 
Keeping it short, simple and to the point is the best way. None of this grandstranding (long drawn out post that read like a book) to try to prove you are the best.
 
God forbid that people will have to read (ugh books I know right?).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom